AN  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 
ORIGIN  AND  FORMATION 

OF   THE 

AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY 

HELD  AT  PHILADELPHIA 
FOR   PROMOTING  USEFUL   KNOWLEDGE 

BY 

PETER   STEPHEN  DU  PONCEAU 

President  of  the  Society 


WITH  THE 

COMMUNICATION  OF  J.  FRANCIS  FISHER,  ESQ. 

AND  THE 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  TO  WHICH 

THESE  PAPERS  WERE  REFERRED 

READ  OCTOBER  15,  1841 


AND 

THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 

ON   THE 

DATE  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY 
ACCEPTED  MAY  1,  1914 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY 
1914 


PRESS  OF 

THE  NEW  ERA  PRINTING  COMPANY 
LANCASTER,  PA. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Historical  Account  of  the  Origin  of  The  American 
Philosophical  Society,  By  Peter  Stephen  Du- 
Ponceau  3 

Communication  of  J.  Francis  Fisher 143 

Report  of  the  Committee  to  which  was  referred 
the  Communications  of  Mr.  DuPonceau  and  Mr. 
Fisher 53 

Appendices : 

B.  Abstract  from  the  Junto  Minute  Book. ...     99 

C.  Chronological  Statement 126 

Letter  from  J.  Francis  Fisher  to  Peter  S.  Du- 
Ponceau, June  30,  1840 157 

Letter  from  J.  Francis  Fisher  to  the  Secretaries 
of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  Novem- 
ber 13,  1840 162 

Action  of  the  Society,  November  5,  1841 136 

Additional  Data  collected  in  1910 137 

Eeport  of  the  Committee  appointed  February  18, 
1910  to  investigate  and  determine  the  date  of 
the  foundation  of  the  Society.  (Presented 
May  1,  1914) 164 

Acceptance  of  the  Eeport,  May  1,  1914 196 


HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN 

OF    THE 

AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY 


It  is  generally  known  that  the  American  Philosoph- 
ical Society,  as  at  present  constituted,  was  formed  at 
the  latter  end  of  the  year  1768,  by  the  union  of  two 
associations  which  existed  at  that  time,  one  of  which 
was  called  "The  American  Society  held  at  Philadel- 
phia for  .promoting  and  propagating  useful  knowl- 
edge, "  and  the  other  "The  American  Philosophical 
Society";  but  its  history  does  not  begin  at  that 
period:  in  order  to  have  a  full  view  of  it,  we  ought 
to  trace  to  their  origin  the  two  Societies  by  the 
union  of  which  it  was  formed,  follow  them  in  their 
progress  to  the  time  of  their  junction,  and  what  is  not 
less  interesting,  we  should  be  informed  of  their  dif- 
ferent views,  their  different  interests,  and  the  means 
by  which  their  union  was  effected. 

This  is  the  more  necessary,  that  although  little  more 
than  seventy  years  have  elapsed  since  that  union  took 
place,  different  opinions  already  prevail,  as  to  the 
origin  of  one  of  the  two  Societies  which,  sacrificing 
their  little  jealousies  to  the  honor  of  their  country 
and  the  advantage  of  Science,  agreed  to  unite  their 


HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE 

efforts  for  the  advancement  of  knowledge ;  and  like  a 
band  of  brothers  to  join  in  forming  the  Society  which 
I  have  now  the  honor  of  addressing.  Some  are  of 
opinion,  that  the  "  American "  Society  which  I  call 
thus  for  shortness'  sake,  and  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  other  which  I  shall  call  the  "Philosophical,"  was 
no  other  than  the  celebrated  Junto,  established  by  the 
illustrious  Franklin  in  1727,  and  of  which  he  gives 
so  interesting  an  account  in  his  autobiography,  while 
others  think  that  it  was  a  different  Association,  of 
uncertain  origin,  but  more  recent  than  that  of  the 
other  Society. 

Among  those  who  entertain  the  latter  opinion,  or 
rather  who  have  doubts  upon  the  subject,  are  men 
whose  sentiments  are  entitled  to  the  highest  respect, 
men  of  profound  learning  and  established  reputation, 
justly  deserved,  to  whom  I  should  not  have  alluded, 
if  one  of  them  had  not  expressed  his  doubts  in  a  work 
destined  to  go  to  posterity.1 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  give  to  this  sketch  a  polem- 
ical character,  but  in  treating  this  subject  historically, 
I  shall  be  obliged  to  give  the  reasons  which  have  pro- 
duced in  my  mind  the  fullest  convictions  that  the 
"  American "  Society  was  no  other  than  the  Junto  es- 
tablished by  Franklin,  which,  when  it  was  united  to 
the  "Philosophical"  Society,  had  only  changed  its 
name,  extended  its  views,  and  increased  the  number 
of  its  members,  without  ceasing  to  be  a  continuation 
of  the  original  association. 

1 1  Sparks'  "  Franklin,"  578. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  O 

The  contrary  opinion,  or  rather  doubt,  is  of  recent 
date.  Ever  since  I  had  the  honor  to  be  a  member  of 
this  Society,1  a  I  felt  a  great  interest  in  its  history;  I 
had  frequent  conversations  with  men  who  took  a  part 
in  its  formation,  and  particularly  with  the  venerable 
Bishop  White,  whose  loss  we  still  deplore,  and  who 
was  a  member  of  the  "  American "  Society.  He  loved 
to  talk  upon  the  subject.  He  informed  me  of  many 
details  respecting  the  union  of  the  two  Societies, 
which  are  not  to  be  found  in  their  records,  some  of 
which  I  have  given  in  this  sketch,  that  the  memory 
of  them  may  be  preserved;  but  neither  he,  nor  any 
body  else  at  that  time  doubted  of  the  "American" 
Society ,  having  Jbeen  a  continuation  of  the  Junto; 
which,  extending  its  views  and  desirous  of  enlarging 
its  sphere  of  action,  thought  proper  to  modify  its 
rules  and  to  adopt  a  new  name ;  this  fact,  until  a  very 
late  period,  was  admitted  by  all. 

To  this  traditional  testimony  we  may  add  that  of 
Franklin  himself,  to  show  that  the  Junto  continued 
in  existence  until  the  time  of  its  union  with  the 
"Philosophical"  Society.  While  absent  in  Europe 
on  public  business,  he  never  lost  sight  of  his  favorite 
Club,  as  he  called  it ;  in  his  letters  to  his  friend  Hugh 
Koberts,  which  Mr.  Sparks  has  preserved  for  us,  he 
never  fails  to  mention  it  with  affection,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following  extracts : 

On  the  16th  of  July  1753,  he  writes:  "My  respects 
to  Mrs.  Roberts,  and  all  our  old  friends  of  the  Junto.2 

la  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  was  elected  a  member  July  15,  1791. 
2  7  Sparks'  "  Franklin,"  77. 


6  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

On  the  16th  of  September  1758—"  I  do  not  quite 
like  your  absenting  yourself  from  the  good  old  Club, 
the  Junto.  I  exhort  you,  therefore,  to  return  to  your 
duty."3 

On  the  26th  February  1761— "  You  tell  me  you 
sometimes  visit  the  ancient  Junto.  I  wish  you  would 
do  it  oftener.  Since  we  have  held  that  Club  till 
we  have  grown  gray  together,  let  us  hold  it  out  to 
the  end."4 

On  the  7th  of  July,  1765 — "I  wish  you  would  con- 
tinue to  meet  the  Junto,  notwithstanding  that  some 
effects  of  our  political  misunderstandings  may  some- 
times appear  there.  It  is  now,  perhaps,  one  of  the 
oldest  Clubs,  as  I  think  it  was  formerly  one  of  the 
best,  in  the  King's  dominions.  It  wants  but  about 
two  years  of  forty  since  it  was  established."5 

And  lastly,  27th  Feb.  1766— "Bemember  me  affec- 
tionately to  the  Junto."* 

It  may  be  asked,  perhaps,  whether  the  Society 
which  was  joined  to  the  "Philosophical,"  and  then 
bore  the  name  of  the  "American"  Society,  was  really 
the  old  Junto  mentioned  in  the  above  extracts.  This 
objection  can  be  easily  answered.  By  the  articles  of 
union  agreed  upon  between  the  two  Societies,  on  the 
20th  of  December  1768,  it  is  stipulated 

Art.  7:  "That  the  books  and  all  the  curiosities,  etc. 
of  the  former  Societies,  be  deposited  in  the  Cabinet 

3  Ibid.,  182.  5Ibid.,  301. 

4  Ibid.,  223.  6  Ibid.,  308. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  7 

or  elsewhere,  as  the  United  Society  shall  direct.'" 
In  consequence  of  this  agreement,  the  Minutes  of  the 
two  Societies  were  deposited  in  the  Cabinet  of  the 
United  Society,  where  they  now  are,  and  it  appears 
from  the  Minutes  of  the  American  Society,  that  on 
the  2nd  of  September  1762,  it  was  still  called  "The 
Junto."*  The  Minutes  from  1762  to  1766  are  missing. 
In  1766,  the  Society  changed  its  name,  but  was  still 
in  fact  the  Junto. 

There  was  no  other  Association  in  Philadelphia, 
that  bore  that  name.  In  the  year  1736  (as  Franklin 
relates  in  his  autobiography)  the  Junto  wanted  to 
increase  the  number  of  its  members,  which  was 
limited  to  twelve.  Franklin  dissuaded  them  from  it, 
by  persuading  them  that  it  would  be  better  for  each 
member  to  form  a  limited  Club,  unconnected  with 
them,  but  pursuing  the  same  objects.  Five  or  six  of 
those  Clubs,  he  says,  were  completed.  They  were 
called  the  Vine,  the  Union,  the  Band,  etc.,  but  none 
of  them  assumed  the  name  of  the  Junto.9  What 
became  of  them  afterwards  does  not  appear.  It  is 
probable  that  they  had  not  a  long  existence. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  the  Society, 
which  in  1766  assumed  the  name  of  the  "  American, " 
was  Franklin's  old  Junto  of  1727,  and  no  other.  It 
is  hardly  credible  that  while  the  old  Junto  existed, 

7  See  the  minutes  of  the  two  societies. 

8  See  the  minutes. 

"1  Sparks'  "Franklin,"  129. 


8  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  OKIGIN  OP  THE 

another  Society  should  have  adopted  the  same  name; 
It  would  have  been  contrary  to  all  the  rules  of 
delicacy  and  mutual  respect. 

Dr.  Smith  in  his  Eulogium  of  Franklin  says  that 
the  Junto  "became  at  last  the  foundation  of  the 
American  Philosophical  Society,  now  assembled  to 
pay  the  last  tribute  to  his  memory."9* 

If  there  would  still  be  any  doubt  upon  this  point, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Dr.  William  Smith,  which 
is  conclusive.  Dr.  Smith  was  a  member  of  the 
''Philosophical"  Society  (not  that  which  had  before 
been  the  Junto)  and  was  the  Secretary  at  the  time 
of  the  Union  in  the  year  1768.  He  was  very  active 
in  promoting  the  Union  of  the  two  associations,  and 
must  have  known  their  respective  origin.  In  1792,  he 
pronounced  an  Eulogium  of  Franklin  before  our  So- 
ciety, which  was  printed  and  is  in  our  Library.  In 
that  Eulogium  he  says:  "For  the  purpose  of  aiding 
and  increasing  the  materials  of  information,  one  of 
the  first  Societies  formed  by  Franklin  was  in  the 
year  1728,10  about  the  22nd  [year]  of  his  age,  and  was 

98 1  do  not  know  whether  in  my  quotation  I  have  added  the  part 
underlined;  It  ought  to  be  inserted.  Nor  do  -I  remember  whether  I 
have  said  that  Smith,  at  the  time  of  the  Union,  was  Secretary  to  the 
Society  opposed  to  the  Junto.  That  is  material.  [Note  added  by 
Mr.  Du  Ponceau.] 

10  We  are  informed  by  Dr.  Franklin,  that  the  Junto  was  estab- 
lished in  the  autumn  of  1727,  but  many  writers  date  its  establish- 
ment in  the  following  year.  Thus  our  Society  is  said  to  have 
begun  in  1769,  though  the  two  Societies  were  united  in  December 
preceding. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY. 

called  the  Junto.  It  consisted  of  a  select  number  of 
his  younger  friends,  who  met  weekly,  for  the  discus- 
sion of  Questions  in  Morality,  Politics,  and  Natural 
Philosophy.  The  number  was  limited  to  twelve  mem- 
bers. After  having  existed  forty  years,  and  having 
contributed  to  the  formation  of  some  very  great  men, 
besides  Franklin  himself,  this  Society  became  at  last, 
the  foundation  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society 
now  assembled  to  pay  the  last  tribute  to  his  memory. " 

We  shall  see  in  the  sequel  that  the  Junto  of  1727, 
and  that  of  1758  and  1766,  of  which  alone  the  re- 
corded proceedings  have  been  preserved,  were  formed 
on  the  same  model,  pursued  the  same  objects  by  the 
same  means,  and  were  governed  by  the  same  rules 
(as  far  as  can  be  ascertained)  and  I  am  forced  to 
conclude  that  the  last  was  a  continuation  of  the 
original  Club,  until  it  thought  proper  to  change  its 
name,  with  a  view  to  the  enlargement  of  its  objects. 

Having  premised  thus  much,  I  shall  now  proceed 
historically.  I  shall  draw  my  facts  from  the  minutes 
of  the  two  Societies  that  are  deposited  in  our  Ar- 
chives, and  from  the  information  that  I  obtained  from 
Cotemporaries.  About  twelve  or  fifteen  years  ago,  I 
had  formed  the  design,  which  I  have  since  abandoned, 
of  writing  the  History  of  this  Society,  at  least  to  a 
certain  period.  With  that  view  I  made  copious  ex- 
tracts from  the  Minutes  above  mentioned,  which  have 
aided  me  in  preparing  this  humble  sketch,  which  will, 
perhaps,  facilitate  the  labours  of  our  future  historian. 


10  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   OKIGIN  OF  THE 

I  shall  begin  with  the  Junto.  . 

The  Eecords  or  Minutes  of  that  institution  during 
the  first  thirty  years  of  its  existence,  are  unfortu- 
nately lost.  Those  that  we  possess  begin  only  with 
the  22nd  of  September  1758.  This  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at;  it  is  more  astonishing  that  so  much 
should  have  been  preserved.  The  Junto  in  its 
origin  was  an  Association  of  young  men  for  mutual 
improvement.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  Club,  as  Dr.  Frank- 
lin properly  called  it.  His  spirit  kept  it  alive,  and 
raised  it  gradually  to  what  it  afterwards  became. 
They  had  no  common  repository ;  they  met  at  taverns, 
and  their  papers  passed  from  hand  to  hand,  and  ulti- 
mately disappeared.  This  is  no  more  than  what 
might  have  been  expected. 

We  are  not  in  -possession  of  their  original  rules, 
or  Constitution.  For  all  we  know  respecting  it  we 
are  indebted  to  Dr.  Franklin,  who  fortunately  has 
supplied  us  in  his  autobiography  with  much  informa- 
tion on  this  subject.  To  that  and  some  other  Docu- 
ments found  among  his  papers,  we  must,  therefore, 
have  recourse. 

The  great  man  informs  us  that  in  the  autumn  of 
1727,  he  formed  most  of  his  ingenious  acquaintances 
into  a  Club,  for  mutual  improvement,  which  they 
called  the  Junto.  They  met  on  Friday  evenings. 
The  rules  that  he  drew  up  required  that  every  mem- 
ber in  his  turn,  should  produce  one  or  more  queries 
on  any  point  of  morals,  politics,  or  natural  philos- 


AMEBICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  11 

ophy,  to  be  discussed  by  the  Company;  and  once  in 
three  months,  produce  and  read  an  essay  of  his  own, 
on  any  subject  he  pleased.  Their  debates  were  to 
be  under  the  direction  of  a  President,  and  to  be 
conducted  in  the  sincere  spirit  of  enquiry  after  truth, 
without  fondness  for  dispute  or  desire  of  victory; 
and  to  prevent  warmth,  all  expressions  of  positive- 
ness  in  opinions,  or  direct  contradiction,  were  after 
sometime,  made  contraband,  and  prohibited  under 
small  pecuniary  penalties.11 

The  number  of  the  members  was  limited  to  twelve.12 

The  first  members  of  the  Society  were  himself, 
Joseph  Breintnall,  Thomas  Godfrey,  Nicholas  Scull, 
Wm.  Parsons,  William  Mangridge,  Hugh  Meredith, 
Stephen  Potts,  George  Webb,  Robert  Grace,  and 
William  Coleman,  who,  with  Franklin,  were  the  only 
survivors  at  the  time  of  the  union  of  the  two  Societies. 

This  is  all  that  is  found  in  Franklin's  autobiog- 
raphy respecting  the  Junto,  except  the  character  of 
its  first  members,  which  are  too  well  known  to  need 
to  be  repeated  here.  But  in  some  loose  sheets  found 
among  his  papers,  and  which  have  been  preserved 
by  Mr.  Sparks,  some  further  light  is  thrown  upon 
the  subject. 

Among  those  scraps  (if  anything  from  Franklin 
may  be  so  called)  we  find  a  paper  entitled:  " Rules 
for  a  Club  established  for  mutual  improvement,'7 

11 1  Sparks'  «  Franklin,"  81. 
12  Ibid.,  129. 


12  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

which  Mr.  Sparks  tells  us  in  a  note  was  drawn  up  for 
the  Junto  in  1728.13  In  that  paper  are  forty  questions 
to  be  asked  of  each  member  at  every  meeting.  I  do 
not  think  that  they  were  adopted,  or,  if  they  were, 
they  cannot  have  remained  long  in  use,  as  it  would 
have  taken  up  the  whole  time  of  each  meeting  for 
each  member  to  answer  them,  and  they  would  have 
led  to  conversations  and  perhaps,  discussions  without 
end.  They  related  chiefly  to  the  gossip  of  the  day, 
what  strangers  had  arrived  in  town,  who  had  failed 
in  business,  etc.,  which  questions  appear  to  have  been 
intended  more  for  the  worldly  advantage  than  for  the 
mental  improvement  of  the  members. 

Franklin  candidly  admits  that  the  Junto  was  partly 
established  with  a  view  to  promote  the  success  of  the 
members  in  business,  and  that  he  himself  profited 
by  it.14 

But  that  was  not  their  principal  object.  In  the 
same  papers  there  are  four  questions,  distinct  from 
the  forty  above  mentioned,  which  are  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent character,  and  which  truly  bear  the  stamp  of 
the  great  mind  of  Franklin.  I  copy  literally  from 
the  paper  as  Mr.  Sparks  has  recorded  it. 

"Any  person  to  be  qualified  (as  a  member  of  the 
Junto)  to  stand  up,  and  lay  his  hand  upon  his  breast, 
and  be  asked  these  questions,  viz : 

"  1.  Have  you  any  particular  disrespect  to  any 
present  members?  Answer.  I  have  not. 

13  2  Sparks'  "  Franklin,"  9.         "  1  Sparks'  "  Franklin,"  83. 


AMEKICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  13 

"2.  Do  you  sincerely  declare  that  you  love  man- 
kind in  general,  of  what  profession  or  religion  soever  ? 
Answer.  I  do. 

"3.  Do  you  think  any  person  ought  to  be  harmed  in 
his  body,  name  or  goods,  for  mere  speculative  opin- 
ions, or  his  external  way  of  worship!  Answer.  No. 

"4.  Do  you  love  truth  for  truth 's  sake,  and  will  you 
endeavor  impartially  to  find  and  receive  it  yourself, 
and  communicate  it  to  others?  Answer.  Yes." 

It  is  very  probable  that  this  admirable  test  was 
adopted  by  the  Junto  at  its  first  establishment,  and 
made  a  part  of  its  rules.  In  another  part  of  the  same 
volume,15  there  is  another  paper  of  Dr.  Franklin,  en- 
titled: "Proposals  and  queries  for  the  consideration 
of  the  Junto, "  and  dated  June  30th,  1732,  between 
four  and  five  years  after  it  was  established.  It  does 
not  appear  whether  those  proposals  were  adopted; 
but  one  of  them  is :  "  That  all  new  members  be  quali- 
fied by  the  four  qualifications,  and  all  the  old  ones 
take  .  .  .  (the  sentence  is  not  finished).  This  seems 
to  imply  that  the  four  qualifications,  which  can  be  no 
others  than  those  above  cited,  were  already  in  use 
among  the  Junto,  and  we  shall  see  hereafter  that 
they  were  made  part  of  the  amended  rules  in  1766, 
and  afterwards,  until  the  entirely  new  organization 
of  the  Junto  in  1768,  which  produced  the  union. 

This  is  all  the  information  which  the  works  of 
Franklin  supply  us  with  on  the  subject  of  the  Junto. 

15  P.  551. 


14  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  OKIGIN  OF  THE 

We  may,  however,  gather  something  more  from  what 
we  possess  of  the  records  or  minutes  of  their  proceed- 
ings, from  1758  to  1768  inclusive,  a  period  of  eleven 
years,  in  which  unfortunately  there  is  a  chasm  of 
four  years,  from  1762  to  1766,  by  the  loss,  as  is  be- 
lieved, of  a  volume  of  those  .minutes,  which  there  is 
little  hope  of  recovering. 

I  shall  then  by  the  aid  of  those  manuscripts,  follow 
the  Junto  through  their  various  labours,  to  the  period 
when  the  " Philosophical7 '  Society  which  had  been 
asleep  during  more  than  twenty  years,  began  to 
revive,  when,  after  a  short  history  of  that  institution, 
I  shall  follow  the  two  Societies  in  their  mutual 
jealousies,  and  in  their  negotiations  for  an  union, 
which  were  happily  terminated  by  the  formation  of 
the  American  Philosophical  Society,  held  at  Phila- 
delphia, for  promoting  useful  Knowledge. 

The  minutes  of  the  Junto,  afterward  called  the 
"  American "  Society,  that  are  now  in  our  possession, 
consist  of  two  folio  manuscript  volumes,  which,  by 
the  care  of  our  active  and  zealous  Librarian,151  have 
been  handsomely  bound  up  in  one.  One  of  these 
manuscripts  contains  the  proceedings  of  the  Junto, 
so-called,  from  the  22nd  of  September  1758  to  the 
24th  of  the  same  month  in  1762,  being  a  period  of 
four  years.  The  other  consists  of  the  minutes  of  the 
same  body,  first  under  its  original  name  and  after- 
wards under  that  of  the  "  American  Society,  held 

158  John  Vaughan. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  15 

at  Philadelphia,  for  promoting  and  propagating  use- 
ful knowledge."  These  minutes  begin  on  the  25th  of 
April  1766  and  end  with  the  union  of  the  two  So- 
cie&es,  on  the  20th  of  December  1768,  comprising  a 
period  within  a  few  days  of  two  years  and  nine 
months. 

I  am  strongly  inclined  to  believe  that  there  was  an 
intermediate  volume,  comprising  the  four  years  be- 
tween 1762  and  1766,  which  has,  unfortunately,  been 
lost.  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  above  cited  Eulogium  on 
Franklin,  tells  us  "that  a  book  containing  many  of 
the  questions  discussed  by  the  Junto,  was,  on  the 
formation  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  put 
into  his  hands  for  the  purpose  of  being  digested,  and 
in  due  time  published  among  the  transactions  of  that 
body."  It  was  one  of  the  stipulations  at  the  time 
of  the  union,  that  selections  should  be  made  from  the 
papers  of  the  two  Societies,  should  be  published  in 
the  transactions  of  the  United  Society,  and  that  was 
in  fact  done,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  first  Volume  of 
our  Transactions. 

The  date  of  that  book  only  remains  to  be  ascer- 
tained. Fortunately  Dr.  Smith  in  his  oration  men- 
tions several  of  the  questions  which  that  volume  con- 
tained, and  one  of  them  fixes  its  date.  The  question 
is:  "How  may  the  possession  of  the  Lakes  be  im- 
proved to  our  advantage?"  Now  this  question  can 
only  have  been  asked  after  the  cession  of  Canada  in 
1763,  and  not  long  after  it,  as  the  subject  was  then 


16  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

fresh,  and  attracted  the  general  attention.  I  think 
then  I  am  founded  in  my  conjecture  that  such  a  book 
existed,  and  that  it  was  the  one  that  was  put  into  the 
hands  of  Dr.  Smith,  which  he  forgot  to  return,  or  if 
he  returned  it,  was  otherwise  lost. 

This  conjecture  acquires  strength  when  we  consider 
what  little  care  was  taken  of  those  valuable  docu- 
ments. By  the  articles  of  union,  on  the  20th  of 
December  1768,  it  was  agreed  that  the  books  etc.  of 
the  two  Societies  should  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of 
the  United  Society.  But  this  stipulation  was  not 
faithfully  executed.  I  do  not  know  how  the  first  of  the 
two  volumes  above  mentioned  came  into  our  posses- 
sion, but  the  second  and  most  important,  as  it  con- 
tains the  proceedings  of  the  new  organization  of  the 
Junto  and  the  negotiations  for  the  union  of  the  two 
Societies,  remained  eleven  years  after  that  union  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Eobert  Strettell  Jones,  a  member 
of  the  Society,  who,  on  the  26th  of  June,  1781,  sent 
it  to  one  of  the  Secretaries,  with  other  documents  be- 
longing to  us,  and  with  the  only  apology  that  he  had 
"found  them  among  his  papers. "  See  his  letter  to 
Mr.  [Timothy]  Matlack,  bound  with  the  two  volumes 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Junto. 

I  proceed  now  to  examine  the  contents  of  those 
volumes : 

In  the  first  we  recognize  in  every  page  the  old 
Junto,  as  established  by  Dr.  Franklin.  The  minutes 
that  it  contains  are  filled  with  questions  to  be  dis- 


AMEKICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  17 

cussed,  discussions  thereon,  and  with  the  decisions 
given  upon  them  and  essays  written  by  the  members 
and  read  at  the  meetings.  It  is  useless  to  enter  into 
details  upon  this  subject,  the  proceedings  will  speak 
for  themselves.  I  shall  only  take  notice  of  what 
appears  the  most  worthy  of  remark. 

At  the  date  when  the  volume  begins,  the  members 
were:  Francis  Eawle,  Charles  Thomson,  J.  Woolley, 
Peter  Chevalier,  William  Franklin,  (son  of  Benjamin, 
and  afterwards  Governor  of  New  Jersey),  J.  Mather, 
Philip  Syng,  J.  Paschall,  Edmund  Physick,  J.  Howell, 
and  W.  Hopkins — (eleven  members).  Those  absent 
are  noted.  Thirty  years  had  elapsed  since  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Club,  and  therefore  it  is  not  astonishing 
that  there  should  be  a  total  change  of  its  members. 
William  Coleman,  one  of  the  founders,  was  still  alive, 
[but]  many  causes  might  prevent  him  from  continu- 
ing his  attendance. 

Nor  do  we  find  among  these  names  those  of  Ben- 
jamin Franklin  and  of  his  friend  Hugh  Roberts.  The 
former  was  in  England,  and  it  was  unknown  when 
he  should  return.  He  was  probably  more  considered 
at  that  time  as  the  founder  and  patron  of  that  Club 
(for  such,  in  fact,  it  was)  than  as  one  of  its  active 
members. 

The  membership  of  a  Club  for  mutual  improvement 
is  not  like  that  of  a  Society  for  the  promotion  of 
knowledge;  it  does  not  look  forward  to  perpetuity, 
and  it  is  not  considered  an  honor  to  be  on  the  list  of 


18  HISTOBICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  OKIGIN  OF  THE 

its  members.  It  would,  probably,  have  been  dis- 
solved, like  so  many  others,  if  Franklin  had  not  ex- 
erted himself  by  his  presence  while  here,  and  by  his 
correspondence  when  abroad,  to  keep  it  alive.  As 
his  representative,  as  it  were,  we  find  his  son  William 
Franklin  in  this  list  of  members,  though  he  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  a  very  constant  attendant.  He 
went  often  into  the  country,  probably  to  New  Jersey, 
of  which  he  was  appointed  Governor  about  the  time 
when  this  volume  ends. 

As  to  Hugh  Eoberts,  he  does  not  seem  to  have 
shared  in  the  enthusiasm  of  his  illustrious  friend. 
He  was  advanced  in  years  and  did  not  probably  like 
to  associate  with  a  younger  race.  He  considered 
himself  as  emeritus.  In  1768,  when  the  differences 
were  at  their  height  between  the  two  Societies,  we 
find  him  enlisted  with  that  opposed  to  the  old  Junto.18 

In  a  Club  like  that  we  are  speaking  of,  which  lasted 
during  forty  years,  limited  to  twelve  members,  and 
originally  formed  by  young  men  for  their  mutual 
improvement,  we  must  not  expect  to  find  constantly 
the  same  names;  as  the  old  ones  retire,  younger  ones 
take  their  places,  but  the  Club  still  remains,  notwith- 
standing these  successive  mutations,  the  same  as 
originally  formed. 

Thus  the  Junto  will  be  found  to  have  been  until 
a  short  time  before  its  union  under  another  name 

16  He  was  elected  a  member  of  the  Philosophical  Society,  on  the 
19th  of  January,  1768. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  19 

with  the  Philosophical  Society.  The  loss  of  the 
missing  volume  is  so  much  the  more  to  be  regretted, 
as  it  included  a  period  when  Franklin  was  in  this 
country,  and  probably  took  an  active  part  in  the 
Junto  proceedings.  During  the  two  other  periods 
he  was  in  England. 

At  the  time  we  are  speaking  of  and  afterward, 
until  the  union  of  the  two  Societies,  Charles  Thomson, 
in  the  absence  of  Franklin,  appears  to  have  been  the 
leader  of  the  Junto.  I  need  not  say  that  he  was  the 
same  man  who  at  the  Eevolution,  and  until  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  present  Federal  Constitution,  held 
the  high  and  important  office  of  Secretary  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States. 

The  meetings  of  the  Junto,  with  few  interruptions, 
regularly  took  -place  on  the  Friday  of  every  week, 
and  business  was  transacted  in  the  usual  manner, 
until  the  latter  end  of  the  year  1760,  when  their  num- 
ber was  reduced  to  six,  who  were  Charles  Thomson, 
Edmund  Physick,  Francis  Rawle,  Joshua  Howell, 
Isaac  Paschal,  and  William  Hopkins.  Two,  one  of 
whom  was  William  Franklin,  had  gone  to  England, 
two  had  died,  the  others  did  not  attend,  nor  con- 
tribute to  the  expenses,  and  were  considered  at  most 
as  honorary  members. 

In  that  situation  of  things,  the  attending  members 
were  at  a  loss  what  to  do;  several  meetings  took 
place,  but  no  business  was  done;  at  last  on  the  6th 
of  February,  1761,  the  state  of  the  Junto  was  taken 


20  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   OKIGIN  OF  THE 

into  consideration;  it  was  proposed  to  dissolve  the 
Association,  but  that  was  objected  to ;  it  was  thought 
best  to  go  on  and  to  return  to  the  first  -principles, 
which,  it  would  appear  had  been  in  some  respects  lost 
sight  of;  but  the  original  rules  (drafted  by  Franklin) 
had  been  lost  or  mislaid,  and  could  not  be  found. 
After  much  discussion,  it  was  determined  to  appoint 
a  Committee  to  write  them  anew  from  the  recollection 
of  the  members;  Edmund  Physick  and  Charles 
Thomson  were  appointed  that  Committee,  who  it 
seems,  had  the  matter  long  under  their  consideration, 
for  they  did  not  make  their  report  until  the  30th  of 
July  following.  The  Rules  which  they  reported,  with 
some  amendments  to  make  them  more  conformable 
to  the  original  Rules,  were  then  adopted  and  ordered 
to  be  entered  on  the  Minutes,  which  was  done.17 

These  Rules  are  entitled  "  Rules  of  a  Society  meet- 
ing weekly  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  for  their 
mutual  improvement  in  useful  knowledge.''  They 
do  not  appear  to  differ  materially  from  those  estab- 
lished by  Franklin,  as  far  as  he  has  made  them  known 
to  us;  the  object  and  the  exercises  are  the  same;  they 
appear  to  have  been  conscientiously  drawn  up  from 
the  recollection  of  the  members.  The  four  famous 
qualifications  are  not  forgotten.  They  are  made  a 
part  of  the  Rules,  nearly  in  the  same  words  as  they 
were  draughted  by  Franklin,  and  as  they  are  given 
above,  p.  12,  et  seq. 

17  Minutes,  pp.  80-83. 


AMEKICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  21 

The  number  of  the  members  does  not  appear  to  be 
limited.  Perhaps  it  was  a  thing  understood,  and  not 
made  a  part  of  the  Eules. 

The  rules  might  be  amended  with  the  consent  of 
three-fourths  of  a  Company,  after  a  week's  previous 
notice. 

They  are  very  particular  for  preserving  decency  in 
the  discussions  between  the  members. 

As  to  their  internal  organization  they  had  a  Chair- 
man and  Secretary  elected  for  four  weeks  and  a 
Treasurer  for  six  months.  The  Society  in  these 
Eules  is  called  the  Junto.  They  are  signed  by  Ed- 
mund Physick,  Isaac  Paschall,  Charles  Thomson,  Wil- 
liam Hopkins,  Joshua  Howell,  and  George  Eoberts, 
who  seems  to  have  succeeded  Francis  Eawle. 

After  this  awakening,  the  Junto  seems  to  have 
gone  on  tolerably  well,  though  still  few  in  number, 
until  the  16th  of  October,  when  the  Minutes  suddenly 
stop,  and  are  not  resumed  until  the  3rd  of  September 
1762,  on  which  day  we  find  the  following  entry: 

1  i  The  members  of  the  Junto,  desirous  of  continuing 
the  Society,  met  this  evening,  having  agreed  with  Mr. 
Carothers  (the  inn  keeper)  for  the  room  on  the  same 
terms  on  which  we  had  it  formerly.  Mr.  George 
Eoberts  having  been  formerly  approved,  was  now 
introduced  and  qualified,  as  a  member.  E.  Physick 
became  Chairman  this  evening  and  Charles  Thomson, 
Secretary.  Charles  Thomson  proposed  Nathaniel 
Evans  to  be  a  member  of  the  Society. " 


22  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  OKIGIN  OF  THE 

A  question  to  be  discussed  was  proposed. 

Afterwards  a  few  meetings  were  held,  thinly  at- 
tended, until  the  22nd  of  October,  when  three  mem- 
bers only,  Hopkins,  Paschal,  and  Thomson,  were 
present.  Physick  and  Eoberts  are  noted  as  absent, 
so  that  the  Society  was  reduced  to  five  members. 
The  only  entry  on  the  minutes  of  that  days  is  "Con- 
versation general.7'  And  here  ends  the  first  Volume. 

The  Junto  never  was  (at  least  that  we  know  of) 
so  near  its  dissolution  as  at  that  time.  But  fate  had 
decided  it  otherwise.  Less  than  two  months  had 
elapsed  when  Franklin  arrived  at  Philadelphia  from 
England,  where  he  had  resided  five  years.18  He 
would  not  have  suffered  his  favorite  Junto,  the 
bantling  of  his  youth  and  the  Child  of  his  affection  to 
be  dissolved,  and  if  it,  had  ceased  to  exist,  he  would 
not  three  and  four  years  afterward19  have  urged  so 
warmly  his  friend  Hugh  Eoberts  to  attend  its 
meetings. 

This  strengthens  my  conjectures  that  there  existed 
a  book  of  minutes  including  the  two  years  when  its 
founder  was  in  this  City.  How  interesting  it  would 
be  to  read  what  passed  at  those  meetings  when 
Franklin  was  present.  But,  perhaps  the  book  is  not 
lost.  It  may  yet  be  found  in  the  hands  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Dr.  Smith,  or  of  some  other  person.  It 
is,  at  least,  worth  the  enquiry. 

18  He  arrived  the  1st  of  November,  1762.    1  Sparks'  "  Franklin," 
269. 

19  In  1765  and  1766.    See  above,  p.  6. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  23 

I  shall  now  pass  on  to  the  second,  which  ought  to 
be  the  third,  and  is  the  last  volume,  as  it  ends  with 
the  Union  of  the  two  Societies. 

I  am  now  proceeding  to  the  most  interesting  part 
of  this  communication.  Though  a  period  of  less 
than  three  years  is  yet  before  me,  it  is  replete  with 
matter  of  the  highest  interest.  The  humble  Junto 
by  its  association  with  another  body,  which  a  quarter 
of  a  century  before  had  tried  the  same  experiment 
and  failed,  is  going  to  form  a  Society  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting,  extending,  and  disseminating  knowl- 
edge, and  America,  Colonial  America,  not  yet  freed 
from  her  subjection  to  the  power  of  Great  Britain, 
is  going  to  take  her  place  in  the  great  Eepublic  of 
Literature  and  Science.  We  must  follow  her  in  this 
progress. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Franklin,  during 
his  stay  in  this  city,  did  everything  in  his  power  to 
revive  and  excite  the  zeal  of  his  favorite  Junto,  and  it 
appears  that  he  succeeded  to  a  degree  that  he  did  not 
expect  or  even  foresee;  for  in  his  letters  down  to  the 
year  1766,  he  speaks  only  of  the  old  Junto,  and  in- 
vites his  friends  to  attend  more  regularly  to  its  meet- 
ings, but  at  the  time  when  he  thus  wrote  the  Junto 
were  meditating  on  the  means  of  extending  their 
sphere  of  action,  and  their  usefulness  from  them- 
selves to  the  world  at  large. 

Near  forty  years  had  elapsed  since  their  first  estab- 
lishment in  1727;  the  country,  in  the  meantime,  had 


24  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  OKIGIN  OF  THE 

increased  in  population  and  wealth,  and  the  inhabi- 
tants had  made  considerable  progress  in  knowledge. 
This  change  of  circumstances  could  not  but  strike  the 
minds  of  the  leaders  of  the  Junto,  particularly  of 
Charles  Thomson,  who  possessed  a  liberal  and  en- 
larged mind,  and  whom  we  find  at  this  time  acting 
as  the  worthy  successor  of  Franklin.  He  was  a  good 
classical  scholar,  and  possessed  much  general  knowl- 
edge. He  saw  that  the  time  was  come  for  establish- 
ing a  learned  Society  at  Philadelphia,  and  that  the 
Junto  might  be  its  basis.  We  are  going  to  see  how 
he  labored  for  that  purpose,  and  how,  in  the  end,  he 
succeeded. 

.  The  minutes  of  the  Junto,  contained  in  the  second 
of  the  two  volumes  in  our  possession,  begin  with  the 
25th  of  April  1766.  The  members  at  that  time  were 
nine  in  number,  to  wit:  Edmund  Physick,  Isaac 
Bartram,  Isaac  Paschall,  Moses  Bartram,  James 
Pearson,  Isaac  Lane,  Joseph  Paschall,  Owen  Biddle, 
and  Charles  Thomson.  Only  three  of  these  were 
members  at  the  breaking  up  four  years  before,  but 
among  these  were  Charles  Thomson  and  Edmund 
Physick,  who  appear  to  have  been  the  most  active 
and  most  efficient  in  former  times.  The  others  had 
come  in  by  successive  elections. 

At  the  first  opening  of  these  minutes,  it  appears 
that  they  are  the  continuation  of  former  proceedings 
of  the  old  Junto. 

Little  was  done  at  the  meetings,  until  the  23rd  of 


AMEKICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  25 

May,  when  it  appears  that  Owen  Biddle  and  Isaac 
Paschall  had  been  appointed  a  Committee  to  revise 
the  Laws  and  make  a  few  alterations  in  them. 

On  this  day  they  made  their  report,  and  produced 
the  Laws  as  altered  by  them;  it  was  agreed  that  they 
should  be  taken  into  consideration  at  the  next  meet- 
ing, which  was  on  the  30th,  when  those  Laws  with  a 
few  further  alterations  were  adopted,  and  ordered 
to  be  fairly  copied  in  the  Book  of  the  Minutes. 

They  were  in  fact  fairly  copied  on  some  pages, 
which,  it  seems,  were  left  blank  for  that  purpose  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Book.  They  do  not  differ  sub- 
stantially from  those  adopted  in  1761,  said  to  be 
the  original  Eules  drafted  by  Franklin  re-written 
from  the  recollection  of  the  members.  They  are  en- 
titled "  Eules  of  a  Society  meeting  weekly  in  the  City 
of  Philadelphia,  for  their  mutual  improvement  in 
useful  knowledge."  The  objects  of  the  Association, 
its  exercises,  its  internal  organization  are  the  same 
as  in  the  Eules  proposed  to  be  amended.  Even  the 
four  qualifications  are  not  forgotten,  but  are  inserted 
at  full  length ;  the  only  thing  that  is  remarkable,  is  the 
new  name  which  the  Junto  assumed, — "The  Amer- 
ican Society  for  promoting  and  propagating  useful 
knowledge  held  in  Philadelphia,'7  which  appears  to 
have  been  filled  up  after  the  rules  had  been  copied  in 
the  Minute  Book  as  above  mentioned  and  apparently 
in  a  different  hand,  and  that  name  was  not  agreed 
upon  until  the  13th  of  December,  more  than  six 


26  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE 

months  after  the  adoption  of  the  amended  rules.  On 
that  day  they  adopted  additional  rules  for  the  ad- 
mission of  Corresponding  Members,  defining  their 
duties  and  privileges.  They  also  heard  a  paper  read 
on  the  mutual  attraction  of  various  substances,  with 
a  number  of  experiments.  The  name  of  the  author 
is  struck  off.20 

It  is  remarkable  that  there  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  any  discussion  as  to  the  substitution  of  this  new 
name  to  that  of  the  Junto.  The  thing  was  probably 
settled  in  private  conversations  between  the  members. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  be  struck  with  the  great 
difference  that  there  is  between  the  title  of  this  So- 
ciety as  expressed  in  the  heading  of  the  rules  and  the 
new  name  now  given  to  it.  The  one  contemplates 
an  association  of  students,  as  it  were,  for  their  mu- 
tual improvement  and  the  rules  to  which  it  is  prefixed 
correspond  with  that  title,  the  other  aims  at  much 
greater  objects,  "the  promotion, "  and  if  that  were 
not  enough,  the  "  propagation  • '  of  knowledge.  Here, 
then,  is  a  learned  Society  at  once  formed;  the  design 
is  manifest,  the  foundation  is  laid  and  a  suitable 
superstructure  only  is  wanting.  The  Committee  who 
reported  the  rules  did  not  dare  to  wander  out  of 
the  road  traced  by  Franklin;  but  there  was  a  man 
of  genius,  Charles  Thomson,  whose  views  extended 
further,  who  did  not  communicate  them  at  once,  in  all 
their  extent,  but  gradually  led  his  associates  into  the 

20  Minutes,  2d  part,  29,  31. 


AMERICAN    PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  27 

path  of  which  his  clear  mind  perceived  the  honorable 
end. 

This  memorable  innovation  took  place  in  December 
1766.  The  next  step  was  to  extend  the  list  of  the 
associates.  We  see  the  names  of  thirty  members 
subscribed  to  the  amended  Bules,  several  of  whom, 
but  we  do  not  know  how  many,  came  in  during  the 
following  year.  In  the  proceedings  of  that  year  we 
see  much  talk  about  enlarging  the  Society,  that  is  to 
say  extending  its  views  and  its  objects;  but  nothing 
effectual  was  done  until  the  year  1768,  when  things 
were  brought  to  a  conclusion,  which  was,  I  believe, 
very  little  expected,  at  least  by  those  who  were  not  in 
the  secret. 

It  is  to  be  presumed,  however,  that  the  subject  was 
talked  of  abroad,  and  that  the  views  of  the  old  Junto 
engaged  the  public  attention.  The  formation  of  a 
learned  Society  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia  could  not 
fail  to  be  a  subject  of  great  interest.  We  shall  now 
see  the  consequences  that  it  produced. 

Dr.  Franklin,  as  is  well  known,  was  much  engaged 
in  the  year  1743  in  various  projects,  all  tending  to 
the  honor  and  advantage  of  his  country.  In  some 
of  these  he  failed,  because  his  mind  was  elevated 
above  the  age  that  he  lived  in,  in  others  he  succeeded ; 
but  all  produced  good  fruits  in  due  time.  Thus  he 
tells  us  in  his  autobiography,  that  he  failed  at  that 
time  in  procuring  a  College  to  be  established  at  Phila- 


28  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

delphia,  for  the  education  of  youth,  a  project  which, 
however,  was  carried  afterwards  into  full  execution 
and  became  the  foundation  of  our  University,  but  that 
he  was  more  successful  in  the  year  following,  in  pro- 
posing and  establishing  a  "Philosophical  Society."21 
His  success  at  that  time  was  only  temporary,  but  the 
tree  that  he  planted,  after  languishing  for  more  than 
a  quarter  of  a  century  and  being  apparently  dead, 
suddenly  revived  and,  by  its  union  with  the  old 
Junto,  became  one  of  the  columns  of  our  edifice. 

The  first  thing  that  Franklin  did  to  effect  that 
noble  .purpose,  was  to  issue  a  "Proposal  for  promot- 
ing useful  knowledge  among  the  British  plantations 
in  America. ' '  It  was  in  the  form  of  a  circular  letter, 
which  the  author  put  to  his  different  correspondents. 
In  that  letter,  after  noticing  the  vast  extent  of  the 
country,  its  various  productions,  and  the  improve- 
ments, manufactures,  etc.,  of  which  it  was  susceptible, 
he  observes  "that  the  first  drudgery  of  settling  new 
colonies  was  then  pretty  well  over,  and  there  were 
many  in  every  province,  in  circumstances  that  set 
them  at  ease,  and  afforded  them  license  to  cultivate 
the  finer  arts,  and  improve  the  common  stock  of 
knowledge.  To  such  of  those  as  were  men  of  specu- 
lation, he  addressed  his  plan  which  was:  "That  one 
Society  should  be  formed  of  virtuosi  or  ingenious 
men,  residing  in  the  several  colonies,  to  be  established 
in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  as  the  most  central  place, 

21 1  Sparks'  "  Franklin,"  144. 


AMEKICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  29 

and  to  be  called  "The  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety." He  offered  to  be  its  Secretary  until,  he 
modestly  said,  a  better  one  could  be  provided. 

The  members  of  that  Society  were  to  correspond 
with  each  other,  with  the  Eoyal  Society  of  London, 
and  that  of  Dublin.  No  mention  is  made  of  a  for- 
eign Correspondence. 

There  should  always  be  at  Philadelphia  at  least 
seven  members,  viz :  a  Physician,  a  Botanist,  a  Mathe- 
matician, a  Chemist,  a  Mechanician,  a  Geographer, 
and  a  general  Natural  Philosopher,  besides  a  Presi- 
dent, Treasurer,  and  Secretary.22 

It  is  evident  that  the  Junto  at  that  time  could  not 
furnish  these  requisites;  therefore  it  could  not  be 
made  the  basis  of  the  proposed  Association,  besides 
he  wanted  the  aid  of  the  men  of  wealth  and  influence, 
which  that  little  obscure  band  could  not  have  pro- 
cured. 

Franklin  had  probably  in  his  eye  when  he  wrote 
those  proposals  the  seven  Philadelphia  Members  that 
he  speaks  of,  as  well  as  the  President,  Treasurer,  and 
Secretary.  He  found,  I  presume,  no  difficulty  in 
collecting  them  and  in  obtaining  their  co-operation. 
They  had  several  meetings,  but  of  what  they  did, 
we  have  no  information  except  from  a  letter  of 
Franklin  to  his  friend  Cadwallader  Colden,  which  is 
in  these  words: 

22  6  Sparks'  "  Franklin,"  14. 


30  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE 


YOKK, 
April  5th,  1744. 

Sir:  —  Happening  to  be  in  this  City  about  some 
particular  affairs,  I  have  the  pleasure  of  receiving 
yours  of  the  28th  past  here,  and  can  now  acquaint 
you  that  the  Society,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  Philadel- 
phia, is  actually  formed,  and  has  had  several  meet- 
ings to  mutual  satisfaction.  As  soon  as  I  get  home, 
I  shall  send  you  an  account  of  what  has  been  done, 
and  proposed  at  these  meetings. 
The  members  are  : 

Dr.  Thomas  Bond,  as  Physician 

Mr.  John  Bartram,  as  Botanist 

Mr.  Thomas  Godfrey,  as  Mathematician     " 

Mr.  Samuel  Ehoads,  as  Mechanician 

Mr.  William  Parsons,  as  Geographer 

Mr.  Phineas  Bond,   as  General  Natural  Philos- 

opher 

Mr.  Thomas  Hopkinson,  President23 
Mr.  William  Coleman,  Treasurer 
B.  F  --  ,  Secretary. 

To  whom  the  following  members  have  since  been 
added,  viz:  Mr.  Alexander,  of  New  York,  Mr.  Morris, 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Jerseys,  Mr.  Home,  Secretary 
of  D°.,  Mr.  John  Coxe,  of  Trenton,  and  Mr.  Martyn, 
of  the  same  place. 

Mr.  Nichols,  tell  me  of  several  other  gentlemen  of 

23  Thomas  Hopkinson  was  the  grandfather  of  our  worthy  Vice- 
President  [Joseph  Hopkinson]  of  the  same  name. 


AMEKICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  31 

this  City  that  incline  to  encourage  the  thing,  and 
there  are  a  number  of  others,  in  Virginia,  Maryland, 
and  the  New  England  Colonies  who  are  expected  to 
join  us,  as  soon  as  they  are  acquainted  that  the 
Society  has  begun  to  form  itself. 

I  am,  Sir,  with  much  respect, 

Your  most  humble  servant. 

B.  FBANKLIN." 

The  hopes  of  Dr.  Franklin  were  not  fulfilled.  It 
is  probable  that  he  was  not  seconded.  No  records 
of  that  Society,  if  they  had  any,  have  been  preserved 
prior  to  1768.  In  the  list  of  their  members,  which 
they  gave  to  the  American  Society  in  December  of 
that  year,  under  the  head  of  "Old  Members  under 
the  Original  Plan  begun  1743, "  we  find  only  the 
names  of  B.  Franklin,  William  Coleman,  John  Bar- 
tram,  Thomas  Bond,  Phineas  Bond,  Samuel  Ehoads 
and  Francis  Alison,  seven  in  all;  and  all,  except  the 
last,  who  was  the  Vice-Provost  of  the  College,  part 
of  the  nine  mentioned  in  Franklin 's  letter  above 
cited.  Among  the  corresponding  members,  there  is 
only  the  name  of  Cadwallader  Colden,  elected  in  1743, 
all  the  rest  in  1768. 

Three  new  resident  members,  however,  the  two 
Doctors  Shippen  and  Mr.  John  Lukens,  appear  to 
have  been  elected  in  November,  1767;  another,  Dr. 
Cadwalader  Evans,  was  also  elected,  but  declined. 

This  is  all  we  know  of  the  "Philosophical  Society" 
prior  to  1767.  Let  us  now  return  to  that  year. 


32  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE 

The  Province  of  Pennsylvania  was  then  divided 
into  two  great  parties.  The  one  was  the  party  of 
the  Proprietaries,  who  were  struggling  to  preserve 
their  federal  sovereignty,  which  they  were  in  danger 
of  losing.  They  had  governed  with  too  high  a  hand, 
and  the  King  had  been  petitioned  to  make  Pennsyl- 
vania a  Eoyal  Government.  The  other  was  the 
popular  party,  opposed  to  their  Government  and  to 
this  the  greatest  number  if  not  all  the  members  of 
the  Junto,  now  called  the  "American  Society "  be- 
longed. To  the  Proprietary's  party  belonged  the 
wealthiest  and  most  influential  men,  such  as  the 
Aliens,  the  Shippens,  the  Francises  and  all  that  were 
considered  as  the  aristocracy  of  the  country.  The 
officers  of  the  Government,  of  course,  belonged  to 
it.  At  the  head  of  this  party  was  James  Hamilton, 
who  had  been  twice  Governor  of  the  Province  and 
was  the  President  of  the  Provincial  Council.  The 
leader  of  the  opposite  party  was  Benjamin  Franklin, 
who  was  then  in  England,  but  had  great  influence 
in  the  Province,  whose  agent  he  was  at  the  British 
Court. 

These  parties  had  been  much  exasperated  against 
each  other;  but  the  encroachments  of  the  British 
Parliament  on  the  liberties  of  the  country,  had  in  a 
degree  softened  those  asperities  and  brought  the 
citizens  nearer  to  each  other  for  the  purpose  of 
legal  resistance.  Yet  the  flame  of  party  rancour  was 
not  extinguished,  particularly  in  the  highest  ranks 
of  Society. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  33 

In  that  state  of  things,  the  high  aristocratic  party 
could  not  see  with  unconcern  that  an  obscure  Club, 
which  till  then  had  been  unknown,  should  assume  to 
form  themselves  into  a  learned  Society  like  those 
which  in  Europe  bore  Eoyal  titles  and  were  under 
the  patronage  of  the  King,  the  fountain  of  all  honors, 
and  that  they  should  be  so  independently  of  the  Gov- 
ernment which  represented  the  King  in  the  Province. 
It  was  carrying  the  spirit  of  liberty  too  far,  and  they 
determined  to  counteract  it,  as  they  had  not  the  power 
directly  to  forbid  it.  For  that  purpose,  they  could 
think  of  nothing  better  than  restoring  to  life  the 
Society  which  had  been  established  in  1743,  with  the 
participation  of  the  men  in  power,  and  they  took 
immediate  steps  to  effect  it. 

The  few  members  that  remained  of  that  abortive 
Association,  were  easily  collected,  and  their  design 
was  made  known,  but  whether  they  thought  that 
would  be  sufficient  to  check  their  antagonists,  or  from 
some  other  cause,  they  did  nothing  until  the  month 
of  November  1767,  when  they  added  to  their  list 
three  new  members,  and  offered  membership  to  a 
fourth,  who  refused  it. 

The  American  Society,  on  their  part,  took  no  de- 
cisive measure  during  that  year,  but  went  on  in  their 
usual  way;  they  talked  of  enlarging  their  Society, 
as  they  expressed  it,  but  did  nothing  to  effect  that 
purpose,  except  electing  a  few  members.  The  two 
parties  seemed  to  lie  on  their  oars,  watching  each 


34  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OP  THE 

other's  motions;  it  was  not  until  the  year  1768  that 
the  contest  truly  began  and  assumed  a  formidable 
aspect. 

On  the  first  day  of  January  in  that  year,  the  newly 
formed,  or  rather  newly  named  "American  Society," 
consisted  of  thirteen  members,  who  are  named  in  the 
heading  of  that  day's  minutes,  as  follows: 

Present  Absent. 

Charles  Thomson  Edmund  Physick 

Owen  Biddle  William  Biddle 

Clement  Biddle  John  Lukens 

James  Pearson  Samuel  Eldridge 

Dr.  John  Morgan  Nicholas  Wain 

Joseph  Paschall  Isaac  Paschall 
Benjamin  Davis 

"This  evening"  (say  the  minutes)  the  subject  of 
enlarging  the  Society  was  again  resumed,  and 
Charles  Thomson  informed  the  Company?*  that  he 
had  (as  far  as  he  was  able)  collected  the  sense  of 
the  Company  on  the  subject  under  consideration, 
and  committed  his  thoughts  to  writing  as  they  had 
occurred  to  himself,  and  on  considering  the  matter, 
he  was  desired  to  read  them." 

Mr.  Thomson  then  produced  and  read  a  paper  en- 
titled: "Proposals  for  enlarging  this  Society,  in 
order  that  it  may  the  better  answer  the  end  for 

24  The  Junto  always  called  themselves  the  Company,  the  members 
now  sometimes  forgot  that  they  had  become  a  Society. 


AMERICAN    PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  35 

which  it  was  instituted,  namely  the  promoting  and 
propagating  useful  knowledge. " 

In  this  very  able  paper,  though  the  author  may  not 
appear  to  be  profoundly  learned  in  Natural  History 
or  Philosophy,  he  shows  himself,  at  least,  a  warm 
patriot,  and  a  zealous  promoter  of  science  for  the 
honor  as  well  as  for  the  advantage  of  his  country. 
He  expatiates  at  great  length  on  the  vast  extent,  the 
various  climates,  and  the  numerous  productions  of 
the  British  American  Continent,  how  all  these  might 
be  improved  for  the  common  benefit  and  points  to 
Science  as  the  means  of  producing  that  improvement. 
But  the  Society  should  not  confine  itself  to  benefiting 
our  citizens;  it  should  aim  at  enlightening  the  world, 
and  acquire  fame  abroad  by  its  scientific  discoveries, 
of  which  Franklin  had  given  the  example.  He, 
therefore,  concludes  with  proposing  "to  enlarge  the 
plan  of  the  Society,  to  call  to  their  assistance  men 
of  learning  and  ingenuity  from  every  quarter,  and 
unite  in  one  generous  noble  attempt,  not  only  to  pro- 
mote the  interest  of  our  Country,  but  to  raise  her 
to  eminence  in  the  rank  of  polite  and  learned  Na- 
tions/'25 

Why,  said  he,  should  we  hesitate! 

"This  proposal' '  say  the  minutes,  "being  read  and 
approved,  C.  Thomson  was  desired  to  draw  up  some 

25  The  preface  to  the  first  volume  of  our  Transactions  [published  in 
1771]  is  almost  entirely  taken  from  that  paper  and  was  probably 
written  by  Charles  Thomson. 


36  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE 

rules  for  enlarging  our  Society,  and  carrying  his  plan 
into  execution." 

This  was  flying  in  the  face  of  the  newly  revived 
"Philosophical  Society. "  It  awakened  them  from 
their  slumber,  and  they  set  to  work  in  earnest.  On 
the  19th  of  the  same  month,  they  associated  to  them- 
selves seventeen  new  members,  among  whom  were 
John  Penn,  the  Governor  and  one  of  the  Proprie- 
taries, James  Hamilton,  the  President  of  the  Council, 
John  Dickinson,  David  Eittenhouse,  Hugh  Roberts, 
Israel  Pemberton,  Joseph  Galloway,  Thomas  Willing, 
Benjamin  Chew,  and  several  other  eminent  men;  at 
their  next  meeting,  on  the  26th,  they  began  to  frame 
their  rules  (for  the  word  "  Const itution"  was  not  at 
that  time  so  generally  applied  to  such  associations 
as  it  is  at  present)  and  that  they  did  by  discussing 
successively  their  most  important  principles,  which 
they  continued  until  the  8th  of  March,  when  the  rules 
were  finally  adopted. 

The  American  Society  were  startled  at  these  pro- 
ceedings. They  saw  they  had  to  do  with  powerful 
adversaries  and  made  proposals  for  an  union  of  the 
two  Societies,  of  which  the  .particulars  have  not  come 
down  to  us,  but  it  appears  that  they  were  based  on 
the  principles  of  perfect  equality. 

This  was  not,  however,  exactly  what  the  Philosoph- 
ical Society  wanted,  as  will  appear  from  the  sequel. 
At  their  meeting  of  the  2nd  of  February,  the  fol- 
lowing paper  was  read:  "A  Society  having  subsisted 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  37 

for  sometime  in  this  city,  under  the  name  of  "The 
American  Society  held  at  Philadelphia  for  promoting 
and  propagating  useful  knowledge,"  whose  views 
have  been  nearly  the  same  with  those  which  are 
published  in  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  and 
it  being  judged  by  [this  Society]  that  the  ends  pro- 
posed by  both  could  be  carried  on  with  more  advan- 
tage to  the  public,  if  a  union  could  take  place  between 
them,  it  is  proposed  that  such  a  union  may  take  place. " 

To  this  paper  was  added  a  list  of  the  members  of 
the  American  Society  to  the  number  of  seventeen 
resident  and  four  corresponding  members,  to  which 
the  American  Society  had  been  increased  in  the 
intermediate  time. 

If  the  American  were  afraid  of  the  Philosophical 
Society,  the  latter  could  not  but  perceive  that  an  union 
was  desirable,  as  two  such  learned  Societies  could 
not  exist  in  Philadelphia  at  that  time  by  the  side  of 
each  other,  but  they  were  desirous  of  acting  the  prin- 
cipal part  in  that  union,  and  obtaining  a  kind  of  pre- 
ponderance or  superiority  over  their  opponents,  by 
appearing  to  have  admitted  them  into  their  bosom; 
their  numbers  were  about  equal  and,  so  far,  there 
was  equality  between  them,  but  the  others  wanted  an 
union,  not  an  admission.  The  Philosophical  Society, 
however,  wishing  to  take  that  advantage  over  them, 
immediately  resolved  to  break  through  their  rule 
already  adopted,  which  required  that  new  members 
should  be  proposed  at  the  meeting  preceding  that  of 


38  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

their  election,  immediately  elected  the  members  of 
the  American  Society  by  their  names,  and  sent  them 
notice  of  their  election.  But  the  late  Junto,  now  the 
American  Society,  were  not  sensible  of  the  honor 
intended  them,  and  declined  it,  alleging  that  "those 
were  not  the  terms  which  they  had  proposed." 

This  answer  was  received  on  the  9th  of  February, 
and  though  the  rules  of  the  Philosophical  Society 
were  not  yet  complete,  and  were  not  till  the  8th  of 
March,  they  immediately  proceeded  to  decide  the 
question  "How  many  officers  their  Society  should 
consist  of,"  and  it  was  determined  that  there  should 
be  one  President,  two  Vice-Presidents,  a  Treasurer, 
and  three  Secretaries  to  be  chosen  annually,  and  those 
chosen  that  night  to  continue  till  the  first  of  January 
following  and  the  ballots  being  taken,  the  following 
officers  were  chosen : 

President,  James  Hamilton. 

Vice-Presidents,  Wm.  Shippen  and  Thomas  Bond. 

Treasurer,  Philip  Syng. 

Secretaries,  Eev.  William  Smith,  Eev.  John  Ewing, 
and  Dr.  Thomas  Moore. 

This  gave  great  offense  to  the  American  Society. 
We  find  in  their  minutes,  that  on  the  12th  of  the  same 
month  (February)  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  a 
Committee  should  be  appointed  "to  draw  up  a  short 
plain  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Society,  and  of  what 
had  passed  between  them  and  the  Philosophical,  and 
to  lay  it  before  the  Company  at  some  further  meet- 


AMEKICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  39 

ing."2G  Charles  Thomson,  Isaac  Paschall,  Dr.  [John] 
Morgan,  and  Dr.  [Cadwalader]  Evans  were  immedi- 
ately appointed,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  they  per- 
formed the  duty. 

At  the  following  meeting  (the  19th)  Benjamin 
Franklin  was  in  the  regular  form,  by  ballot,  and 
having  been  proposed  at  a  former  meeting,  unani- 
mously elected  a  member  of  the  Society.  This  was 
probably  done  ex  ma j ore  cautela,  his  son,  Governor 
Franklin  having  been  admitted  without  an  election, 
at  the  preceding  meeting,  on  merely  signing  the 
amended  rules,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  been  a 
member  of  the  ancient  Society  (the  Junto),  which 
rule  of  admission,  they  said,  was  concluded  on  in 
reviving  the  Society.27  But  Franklin  was  in  England 
and  could  not  sign  the  amended  articles,  it  was 
thought  best  to  elect  him.  The  Society  probably 
contemplated  to  make  him  their  President,  and 
wished  to  avoid  all  disputes,  particularly  if  an  union 
should  take  place,  which  might  not  have  been  quite 
despaired  of. 

Until  that  time  the  Philosophical  Society  had  held 
their  meetings  in  .public  houses,  but  the  Governor, 
who  as  their  Patron  was  present  at  this  meeting, 
gave  them  permission  to  hold  them  at  the  State 
House ;  thus  they  were  supported  with  the  favor  and 
weight  of  the  Government. 

26  Minutes  A.  S.,  2d  part,  p.  82. 

27  Ibid. 


40  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

The  American  Society  did  not  proceed  so  fast. 
They  did  nothing  for  six  months,  but  elect  new  mem- 
bers, among  whom  was  Dr.  Benjamin  Bush,  and 
order  Thomson's  proposals  to  be  printed  in  the 
Pennsylvania  Chronicle.  They  postponed  from  time 
to  time  the  consideration  of  their  new  rules,  which 
were  not  agreed  upon,  until  the  23rd  of  September, 
as  will  be  shown  in  its  place. 

I  do  not  find,  on  examining  their  minutes,  that 
during  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1768,  the  Amer- 
ican Society  did  anything  worthy  of  remark  that  may 
properly  be  called  Philosophical;  while  on  the  con- 
trary, the  Philosophical  Society,  (to  their  honor  be 
it  spoken)  was  actively  engaged  in  objects  well 
worthy  of  the  name  they  had  assumed. 

The  transit  of  the  planet  Venus  over  the  disk  of 
the  Sun,  was  expected  to  happen  on  the  3rd  of  June 
in  the  following  year.  The  Society  employed  itself 
in  preparatory  measures  for  making  astronomical 
observations  upon  that  phenomenon  in  due  time. 

One  of  their  members,  Mr.  James  Dickinson,  made 
a  proposal  to  the  Society  for  observing  the  transit 
at  James'  Bay  (part  of  Hudson's  Bay)  and  for 
reconnoitring  and  making  a  map  of  the  Country 
from  the  South  end  of  Hudson's  Bay,  extending 
towards  the  head  of  the  Mississippi.  He  offered  at 
the  same  time  to  undertake  in  person  the  conducting 
of  the  observation  of  the  transit  and  making  the 
other  necessary  observations  on  the  country.  The 


AMEKICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  41 

consideration  of  this  offer,  as  to  its  possibility,  use- 
fulness, and  probable  expense,  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Natural  Philosophy  and  Astronomy, 
but  we  do  not  know  what  was  the  result.  It  is 
probable  that  the  expense  was  found  too  great. 

The  Society,  however,  at  that  time,  had  already 
appointed  two  observations  to  be  made,  but  instru- 
ments were  wanted,  and  they  had  no  funds.  They, 
therefore,  applied  to  the  Legislature  for  aid  and 
that  body,  very  liberally,  by  their  resolution  of  the 
15th  of  October,  granted  a  sum  not  exceeding  £100 
sterling,  for  the  purchase  of  a  reflecting  telescope 
and  a  micrometer,  which,  after  being  used  by  the 
Society  were  to  remain  the  property  of  the  As- 
sembly.28 

This  Society,  it  must  be  owned,  enjoyed  the  patron- 
age of  the  Government,  of  which  the  other  was  de- 
prived. 

Various  observations  on  the  transit  of  Venus,  were 
made  after  the  union  of  the  two  Societies,  which  were 
published  in  the  first  volume  of  our  Transactions, 
and  attracted  the  attention  of  the  learned  in  Europe. 

I  must  give  credit,  however,  to  the  American  So- 
ciety for  a  liberal  act,  which  evinces  their  generous 
spirit  and  their  zeal  for  the  improvement  of  their 
Country.  It  shows  also  the  progress  that  had  been 
made  at  that  time  in  the  culture  of  our  native  vine. 

On  the  25th  of  November,  while  the  negotiations 

28  Votes,  Vol.  6,  p.  111. 


42  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

were  pending,  two  specimens  of  wine  were  brought 
to  them,  one  a  year  old,  the  other  of  the  then  present 
vintage,  made  by  one  Maurice  Pound,  of  Eed  Lion 
Hundred,  in  the  County  of  New  Castle,  out  of  grapes 
gathered  from  vines  which  he  himself  had  planted.29 
By  a  certificate  which  he  produced,  it  appeared  that 
in  the  course  of  four  or  five  years,  he  had  cleared 
twelve  acres  of  land,  and  planted  therein  18000  vines, 
that  upwards  of  8000  of  them  were  then  growing, 
and  about  2050  in  a  flourishing  state.  In  the  year 
1767,  about  2|  years  from  his  first  planting  the  slips, 
he  pressed  out  about  150  gallons  of  wine,  and  in  the 
then  present  year  expected  to  make  a  larger  quantity. 
The  Society  awarded  him  a  premium  of  ten  pounds, 
which  was  immediately  paid  to  him  by  their  Treas- 
urer. 

We  must  now  return  to  the  unfortunate  dissentions 
between  the  two  Societies,  and  hasten  to  their  happy 
termination. 

I  have  shown  the  exasperation  of  the  American 
Society  in  the  month  of  February,  when  they  refused 
the  offer  of  the  Philosophical  Society  to  admit  them 
as  individuals  into  their  body,  and  ordered  an  his- 
torical narrative  of  their  differences  to  be  written, 
yet  for  more  than  six  months  they  postponed  from 
time  [to  time],  the  consideration  of  the  new  Eules 
which  a  Committee  had  been  ordered  to  prepare,  it 

23  It  does  not  appear  that  they  were  foreign  plants,  which  a  Del- 
aware farmer  could  hardly  have  imported  at  that  time. 


AMERICAN   PHILOSOPHICAL   SOCIETY.  43 

was  not  until  the  23rd  of  September  that  those  rules 
were  adopted.  It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  here  into 
many  details,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  those  rules 
were  no  longer^  those  of  a  Club  for  mutual  improve- 
ment, but  that  they  were  well  adapted  to  the  object 
for  which  they  were  designed.  The  internal  organ- 
ization of  this  Society,  consisted  of  a  President, 
Vice-President,  two  Secretaries,  three  Curators  of 
Natural  History,  one  for  each  Kingdom,  and  a  Treas- 
urer, all  to  be  annually  elected. 

On  the  4th  of  November,  they  elected  the  following 
officers : 

President,  Benjamin  Franklin 

Vice-President,  Samuel  Powel 

Secretaries,  Charles  Thomson,  Thomas  Mifflin 

Curators,  Dr.  John  Morgan,  Lewis  Nicola,  and 
Isaac  Bartram 

Treasurer,  Clement  Biddle. 

On  the  same  day,  they  incorporated  the  Philadel- 
phia Medical  Society  into  their  body. 

While  these  things  were  passing,  it  is  probable 
that  negotiations  were  privately  going  on  between 
the  patriotic  members  of  the  two  Societies  for  effect- 
ing the  desired  union,  for  in  the  minutes  of  the 
Philosophical  Society,  under  the  date  of  the  15th  of 
the  same  month,  we  find  the  following  entry: 

"This  Society  having  been  informed  that  there  is 
a  disposition  in  the  members  of  the  American  Society 
for  promoting  useful  knowledge  to  unite  with  us,  and 


44  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

that  they  would  appoint  a  Committee  to  treat  with  a 
Committeee  of  this  Society  upon  the  subject,  and  we, 
being  desirous  to  promote  such  a  union,  do  appoint 
Dr.  Shippen,  Dr.  Bond,  Mr.  Syng,.  Mr.  Ehoads,  Dr. 
Smith  and  Mr.  Ewing  to  be  a  Committee  to  concert 
measures  and  prepare  the  way  for  such  union,  and 
to  make  report  of  their  .proceedings  at  the  next 
meeting." 

On  the  18th,  the  Secretary  of  the  American  So- 
ciety, made  known  the  above  to  that  body,  who 
considering  that  the  views  of  both  Societies  were  the 
same,  and  being  persuaded  that  the  ends  proposed 
by  both  might  be  better  answered  and  with  more 
advantage  to  the  public  if  a  union  should  take  place, 
appointed  their  Vice  President,  the  two  Secretaries, 
with  Messrs.  Morgan,  Nicola,  and  Paschall  to  be 
their  Committee  of  Conference,  to  whom  they  gave 
special  instructions  as  to  the  terms  to  be  agreed 
upon.30 

30  The  instructions  were : 

1.  To  agree  upon  a  new  name  for  the  United  Society  (if  the 
union  can  be  accomplished)  as  near  the  names  by  which  the  So- 
cieties are  already  known  as  can  be  accomplished. 

2.  To  agree  that  a  Committee  of  an  equal  number  out  of  both, 
be  appointed  to  draw  up  a  set  of  laws,  for  the  government  of  the 
Society. 

3.  To  agree  upon  an  indifferent  place,  distinct  from  those  where 
the  two  Societies  usually  meet,  where  both  may  convene  the  first 
time. 

4.  To  treat  generally  on  the  terms  of  union,  but  not  to  conclude 
without  laying  them  before  the  Society. 


AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  45 

The  Committees  went  on  very  harmoniously.  They 
had  several  meetings,  discussed  various  points,  and 
exchanged  lists  of  the  members  of  their  respective 
Societies.  At  last,  on  the  20th  of  December,  the 
following  treaty  was  concluded  between  the  contend- 
ing parties: 

"Whereas  two  Societies  subsist  in  this  City,  whose 
views  and  ends  are  the  same,  viz;  the  advancement 
of  useful  knowledge,  and  it  being  judged  that  their 
union  would  be  of  public  advantage,  it  was  agreed 
that  such  a  union  should  take  place,  on  terms  of 
perfect  equality,  and  for  that  purpose  it  was  thought 
reasonable 

1.  That  a  new  name,  made  out  of  the  former  names 
of  both,  should  be  fixed  for  the  united  Society,  and 
the  following  was  accordingly  agreed  to :  viz, — The 
American  Philosophical  Society,  held  at  Philadelphia 
for  promoting  useful  knowledge, 

2.  That  besides  the  members  which  stand  proposed, 
no  new  members  be  proposed  or  elected  by  either 
Society  till  the  Treaty  is  finished, 

3.  That  the  first  meeting  of  the  United  Society,  be 
at  the  College  on  Monday,  the  2nd  of  January  next, 
at  six  o'clock  in  the  evening, 

4.  That  there  shall  be  one  Patron,  one  President, 

5.  To  endeavor  to  have  a  meeting  with  the  other  Committee  as 
early  next  week  as  they  can,  and  if  possible  report  the  result  of 
their  conference  next  Friday. 

It  will  hereafter  appear  that  the  Society  carried  all  their  points. 


46  HISTOKICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

three  Vice-Presidents,  one  Treasurer,  four  Secre- 
taries, and  three  Curators,  and  that  all  the  said 
officers  be  chosen  by  ballot,  at  the  first  meeting,  viz. 
the  2nd  of  January,  (excepting  only,  instead  of  elect- 
ing a  Patron,  a  Committee  of  the  United  Society  be 
appointed  at  said  meeting,  to  wait  on  the  Governor 
of  the  Province,  and  request  him  to  be  Patron)  which 
officers  shall  continue  in  their  respective  offices  till 
the  first  meeting  of  the  United  Society,  which  shall 
be  in  January  1770,  when,  and  at  every  first  meeting 
in  January,  which  shall  be  in  every  year,  there  shall 
be  a  new  election  of  officers, 

5.  That  after  the  union,  a  Committee  be  appointed 
to  form  a  new  set  of  laws,  taking  in  what  may  be 
thought  proper  out  of  the  former  laws  of  both  So- 
cieties, 

6.  That  each  Society  before  the  first  of  January 
pay  off  their  respective  debts,  and  the  Treasurers  of 
the  former  Societies  shall  account  and  settle  with  the 
new  Treasurer  to  be  chosen  and  pay  him  the  balances 
in  their  hands, 

7.  That  the  books  and  all  the  curiosities,  etc.  of  the 
former  Societies,  be  deposited  in  the  cabinet  or  else- 
where as  the  United  Society  shall  direct, 

8.  That  in  the  joint  publication  which  it  may  be 
thought  proper  to  make  of  the  transactions  of  the 
former  Societies,  no  preference  shall  be  given  to  the 
papers   of  either,   but   they   shall   be   arranged   and 
digested  according  to  their  subjects  and  dates, 


AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  47 

9.  That  there  shall  be  a  new  book,  of  the  future 
transactions  of  the  united  Society,  beginning  with  the 
following  preface  or  declaration,  viz: 

Whereas  two  Societies  did  heretofore  subsist  in 
this  City,  whose  views  and  ends  were  the  same,  viz: 
the  advancement  of  useful  knowledge;  and  it  having 
been  judged  that  their  union  would  be  of  public  ad- 
vantage, they  have  agreed  to  unite  accordingly  on 
terms  of  perfect  equality,  and  for  that  purpose  have 
taken  the  following  new  name  "The  American  Philo- 
sophical Society,  held  at  Philadelphia,  for  promoting 
useful  knowledge. " 

This  book,  therefore,  is  to  contain  only  the  trans- 
actions of  the  United  Society  under  the  name  afore- 
said. What  further  relates  to  the  terms  of  Union, 
as  well  as  to  the  former  transactions  of  each  Society, 
being  antecedent  to  the  commencement  of  this  book, 
may  be  found  in  the  old  books  deposited  in  the 
Cabinet. 

In  pursuance  of  this  agreement  the  first  election 
of  the  officers  of  the  United  Society  was  held  at  the 
College  in  4th  Street  on  the  2nd  of  January  1769. 
I  have  said  that  lists  of  the  members  of  the  respective 
Societies  had  been  exchanged.  Those  lists  are  ex- 
tant. From  them  it  appears  that  at  the  time  of  the 
Union,  the  Philosophical  Society  had  92  resident  and 
36  corresponding  members,  and  the  American  had 
78  resident  members  or  Fellows  and  67  Correspond- 
ents. The  two  Societies  had  been  actively  employed 


48  HISTOEICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  OKIGIN  OF  THE 

in  enlisting  recruits,  during  the  period  of  their 
dissentions. 

I  have  been  informed  by  the  venerable  Bishop 
White  that  the  election  for  the  President  of  the 
United  Society  was  very  warmly  contested.  James 
Hamilton  was  the  candidate  of  the  Governor  and  of 
his  party,  and  he  had  been  elected  to  that  office  by 
the  Philosophical  Society.  Those  of  the  popular 
party  were  for  Franklin,  the  President  of  the  Amer- 
ican Society.  Although  the  Philosophical  Society 
had  the  greatest  number  of  resident  members,  and 
consequently  of  votes,  Benjamin  Franklin  was 
elected,  by  what  majority  does  not  appear.  Thus 
the  Democratic  spirit  triumphed  over  the  efforts  of 
the  Government  and  of  the  aristocracy,  a  prelude, 
as  it  would  seem,  to  the  scenes  that  soon  afterwards 
followed. 

The  Governor  was  greatly  mortified  and  disap- 
pointed by  this  result.  When  a  Committee  of  the 
United  Society  waited  upon  him  to  request  his  ac- 
ceptance of  the  title  of  their  patron,  he  fell  into  a 
violent  passion,  and  in  an  angry  tone  replied:  "I 
never  shall  be  the  patron  of  a  Society  that  has  for 
its  President  such  a  —  -  as  Franklin. "  I  have  this 
anecdote  from  Bishop  White.  The  records  only  say 
that  the  Governor  declined. 

Governor  Penn  had  been  the  patron  of  the  first 

^ 

Philosophical  Society,  had  attended  their  meetings 
as  such  and  had  permitted  them  to  meet  in  the  State 


AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  49 

House.  We  may  judge  of  the  excess  of  his  mortifica- 
tion, and  it  is  probable  that  he  had  been  opposed  even 
to  the  union,  foreseeing  its  results.  It  may  be  easily 
understood  why  the  United  Society  did  not  get  a 
Charter  of  incorporation  during  the  continuance  of 
the  proprietary  government. 

Thus  the  two  Societies  which  during  two  years 
and  more  had  been  opposed  to  each  other,  and  seemed 
to  aim  at  each  other's  destruction,  became  firmly 
united.  Their  union  was  sincere,  and  they  laboured 
harmoniously  in  promoting  the  cause  of  Science. 
Laws  were  made  according  to  the  Treaty,  taken  from 
those  of  the  two  Societies  with  great  fairness.  The 
division  of  the  Society  into  Committees  was  taken 
from  the  Eules  of  the  Philosophical  Society,  and  the 
oral  communication  and  discussion  which  give  so 
much  life  to  our  proceedings,  from  those  of  the  old 
Junto,  which  the  American  Society  had  retained. 
In  1771,  they  published  the  first  volume  of  their 
transactions,  which  gained  them  credit  and  reputa- 
tion in  America  and  Europe. 

From  the  facts  above  stated  it  appears  to  me  to 
result : 

1.  That  our  Society  dates  its  origin  as  far  back  as 
the  year  1727  when  the  Junto  was  first  established 
by  Dr.  Franklin. 

2.  That  having  been  the  founder  of  the  two  So- 
cieties which  were  united  in  1768,  that   great  man 
may  justly  be   considered   as   the   founder   and   the 


50  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE 

father  of  our  Society  and  as  such  will  forever  be 
entitled  to  our  veneration  and  grateful  remembrance. 
In  a  secondary  degree,  this  Society  is  also  indebted 
to  the  talents  and  labours  of  Charles  Thomson,  with- 
out whose  exertions  the  Junto  would  not  have  been 
placed  in  a  situation  to  contend  with  the  Philosoph- 
ical Society,  which  probably  would  not  have  been 
revived  but  for  the  jealousy  which  the  Junto  under 
his  direction  excited,  and  this  Society  would  not  have 
been  formed  and  consequently  would  not  now  exist. 

In  writing  this  narrative,  I  have  endeavored  to 
preserve  the  strictest  impartiality.  The  passions  of 
those  times  have  long  since  subsided,  and  it  is  far 
from  my  wish  to  revive  them. 

If  this  essay  should  ever  be  published,  some  of  the 
most  important  documents  might  be  added  by  way 
of  appendix. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  mention  here  the 
names  of  the  officers  of  our  Society  for  the  years 
1769  and  1770,  as  they  are  not  in  our  printed  Trans- 
actions, which  begin  only  with  1771. 

For  1769. 

President,  Benjamin  Franklin 

Vice-Presidents,     Dr..    Thomas     Cadwalader,     Dr. 
Thomas  Bond,  and  Joseph  Galloway 

Secretaries,    Charles   Thomson,   Eev.   Wm.    Smith, 
Thomas  Mifflin,  and  John  Ewing 

Curators,    Dr.    Adam    Kuhn,    Dr.    John    Morgan, 
Lewis  Nicola 

Treasurer,  Philip  Syng. 


AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY.  51 

For  1770. 

President,  B.  Franklin 

Vice-Presidents,  Joseph  Galloway,  Dr.  Thomas 
Bond,  Samuel  Ehoads 

Secretaries,  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Smith,  Charles  Thom- 
son, Thomas  Mifflin,  Geo.  Roberts 

Curators,  Isaac  Bartram,  Dr.  B.  Rush,  Owen 
Biddle 

Treasurer,  Philip  Syng. 


[The  views  set  forth  in  the  above  paper  by  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau  were  opposed  in  a  communication  made  to 
the  Society  on  the  same  date  by  J.  Francis  Fisher, 
Esq.,  of  Philadelphia.  These  communications  were 
referred  to  a  special  committee  whose  report  follows. 
Unfortunately  Mr.  Fisher's  paper  has  not  been  found 
in  the  Archives  of  the  Society.] 


EEPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 

TO  WHICH 

MR.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTORY  WAS 
REFERRED 

BEAD    OCTOBEE    15TH,    1841. 

The  Committee,  to  whom  were  referred,  on  the 
26th  of  June  1840,  the  Communications  of  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau  and  Mr.  Fisher,  relating  to  the  early  history 
of  the  Society,  beg  leave  to  present  their  report:— 

The  paper  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  was  presented  on  the 
19th  of  June,  1840,  but  read  at  an  adjourned  meeting, 
held  a  week  afterwards,  when  the  Committee  was 
appointed.  It  is  universally  admitted  that  the 
present  Society  was  formed  by  the  union  of  two 
Societies  existing  prior  to  1769,  which  we  shall 
designate,  as  the  author  of  the  paper  has  done,  by 
the  abridged  titles  of  "Philosophical  Society "  and 
"American  Society. "  In  the  outset  of  his  paper, 
Mr.  Du  Ponceau  states  that  a  difference  of  'opinion 
exists  whether  the  American  Society  was  a  continua- 
tion of  the  Junto  instituted  by  Franklin  in  1727,  or 
a  different  association  of  more  recent  date.  Among 
those  who  hold  the  latter  opinion,  Mr.  Du  Ponceau 
mentions  Mr.  Sparks,  who  expresses  it,  or  at  least  his 
doubts  on  the  point,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  life 
of  Franklin.  As  the  author  of  the  paper  holds  this 
opinion  to  be  erroneous,  and  as  he  believes  the  work 

53 


54  REPORT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

of  Mr.  Sparks  is  destined  to  go  to  posterity,  he  ex- 
presses his  desire  to  correct  it,  and  to  give  the  rea- 
sons for  his  "fullest  convictions  that  the  "American 
Society "  was  no  other  than  the  Junto  established  by 
Franklin. " 

The  opinion  thus  published  by  Mr.  Sparks  was 
founded  upon  statements  furnished,  at  his  request, 
by  Mr.  Fisher.  The  latter,  conscious  of  this  fact, 
and  being  satisfied  that  the  paper  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau, 
when  read,  would  be  found  to  object  to  the  account 
given  of  the  origin  of  the  Society  by  Mr.  Sparks,  felt 
himself  called  upon  to  mention  that  account,  as  alone 
answerable  for  it.  Accordingly,  between  the  pres- 
entation and  reading  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau's  paper, 
Mr.  Fisher  prepared  the  Communication,  which  was 
referred  to  this  Committee  at  the  same  time  with  that 
of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau. 

Since  the  reference  of  the  Communications,  the 
Committee  have  received  from  the  authors,  the  fol- 
lowing papers,  to  which,  though  not  formally  re- 
ferred to  them,  they  have  given  attentive  considera- 
tion. 

1.  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  to  Mr.  Kane,  June  29th,  1840. 

2.  Note  by  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  to  his  paper,  June  30th. 

3.  Mr.  Fisher  to  Mr.  Du  Ponceau,  June  30th. 

4.  Mr.  Du  Ponceau's  answer  to  Mr.  Fisher,  July  1st. 

5.  Mr.  Fisher  to  the  Committee,  Nov.  13th.1 

The  Committee,  fully  sensible  of  the  interest  felt 

1  These  papers  are  not  in  the  Archives  of  the  Society. 


55 

by  the  members  in  the  early  history  of  the  Society, 
have  devoted  considerable  time  to  researches,  in  the 
hope  of  shedding  additional  light  to  that  thrown  by 
the  labours  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  and  Mr.  Fisher,  in 
clearing  up  the  doubtful  points  in  our  Annals.  They 
have  had  a  number  of  meetings,  appointed  Sub-Com- 
mittees to  confer  with  surviving  members  of  several 
families,  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  valuable  papers, 
and  examined  the  Franklin  Manuscripts  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  Society.  Though  they  have  met  with 
disappointments  in  several  quarters,  still  they  trust 
that  their  labours  have  not  been  without  fruit,  at 
least  in  the  acquisition  of  some  facts  and  authorities, 
not  heretofore  known,  or  made  available. 

In  tracing  the  early  history  of  the  Society,  the 
point  of  great  difficulty  is  «to  determine  the  origin 
of  the  "American  Society. "  It  is  an  undisputed 
fact  that  this  Society  had  been  called  "The  Junto. " 
It  was  the  recognized  name  of  the  association,  as 
appears  from  the  Minutes  in  our  possession,  until 
the  13th  of  Dec.  1766,  when  it  was  changed  to  "The 
American  Society  for  promoting  and  propagating 
Useful  Knowledge,  held  in  Philadelphia. ' '  Now  the 
minutes  of  this  body  are  not  known  to  exist  at  an 
earlier  date  than  Sept.  22nd,  1758;  and  hence  the 
question  arises, — is  the  Junto  of  which  we  have 
minutes,  and  which  was  afterwards  called  the  "Amer- 
ican Society,"  a  continuation  of  the  Junto,  estab- 
lished by  Franklin  in  17271  In  examining  this  ques- 


56  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

tion,  the  Committee,  to  promote  perspicuity,  propose 
to  call  the  Junto,  which  changed  its  name  to  the 
"American  Society, "  the  Society -Junto,  and  that  es- 
tablished by  Franklin,  the  Franklin- Junto. 

At  first  blush,  nothing  can  be  more  natural  than 
to  suppose  that  the  Society-Junto  was  no  other  than 
the  Junto  established  by  Franklin;  and,  indeed,  the 
organization  of  the  two  associations  presents  so 
striking  an  agreement  in  one  particular,  that  it  seems 
to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  first  impression.  But 
when  the  question  is  examined  more  narrowly,  it  is 
remarkable  to  observe  how  numerous  the  facts  are 
which  militate  against  the  opinion  that  the  two 
Juntos  were  the  same  Association  at  different  periods 
of  its  existence. 

The  striking  agreement,  above  referred  to,  con- 
sists in  the  fact  that  both  Juntos  adopted  four  quali- 
fications, in  nearly  the  same  words,  upon  the  initia- 
tion of  members.  In  order  to  place  this  coincidence 
in  the  fairest  light,  the  Committee  subjoin  them  in 
parallel  passages. 

Franklin- Junto.  Society- Junto. 

"Any     person     to     be  The     member     elected 

qualified,  to  stand  up,  and  shall  be  ' '  qualified  by  the 

lay    his    hand    upon    his  Chairman   after   the   fol- 

breast,  and  be  asked  these  lowing  manner : — 

questions,  viz:  "Standing  up,  and  lay- 
ing   his    hand    upon    his 


ON  ME.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTOKY. 


57 


1.  Have  you   any  par- 
ticular disrespect  to  any 
present    members !      An- 
swer.    I  have  not. 

2.  Do  you  sincerely  de- 
clare that  you  love  man- 
kind in  general,  of  what 
profession,     or     religion 
soever  I     Answer.     I  do. 

3.  Do    you    think    any 
person  ought  to  be  harmed 
in  his  body,  name  or  goods 
for  mere  speculative  opin- 
ions, or  his  external  way 
of  worship!  Answer.  No. 

4.  Do  you  love  truth  for 
truth's  sake,  and  will  you 
endeavor    impartially    to 
find  and  receive  it  your- 
self, and  communicate  it 
toothers?  Answer.  Yes." 

2  Sparks'  Franklin  12. 


breast,  he  shall  be  asked 
the  following  questions : 

1.  Have  you  any  objec- 
tion, or  any  personal  dis- 
like to  any  member  of  this 
Society? 

2.  Do  you  love  mankind 
in  general,  of  what  nation, 
religion,  or  profession  so- 
ever they  be! 

3.  Do  you  think  any  one 
ought  to  be  injured  in  his 
estate,  character,  or  per- 
son for  his  mere  specula- 
tive opinion  in  matters  of 
religion  ? 

4.  Do  you  love  truth  for 
truth's  sake,  and  will  you 
endeavor    impartially    to 
find    it    out,    and    freely 
communicate  it  to  others! 

Junto  Minutes,  Part  1,  84. 


Notwithstanding  this  striking  coincidence  in  or- 
ganization between  the  two  Juntos,  which,  it  is 
admitted,  could  not  have  been  the  result  of  accident, 
the  Committee  are  of  opinion  that  they  were  distinct 


58  EEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

bodies.  The  reason  for  their  opinion,  they  will 
proceed  to  state  as  briefly  as  may  be  compatible  with 
the  difficulty  of  the  subject;  and,  afterwards,  they 
will  throw  out  some  conjectures,  in  explanation  of 
the  fact,  that  the  two  Juntos,  notwithstanding  their 
being  distinct  associations,  had  the  same  qualifica- 
tions for  the  initiation  of  members. 

The  Committee  will  first  proceed  to  consider  what 
light  may  be  shed  on  the  question  by  a  comparison 
of  the  list  of  members,  known  to  have  belonged 
severally  to  the  two  Juntos.  And  here  it  may  be 
remarked  that  if  the  Society-Junto,  so  far  as  its 
minutes  have  come  down  to  us,  does  not  embrace  in 
its  list  any  of  the  surviving  members  of  the  Franklin 
Junto,  it  is  fatal  to  the  supposition  of  the  identity 
of  the  two  associations ;  unless  it  can  be  satisfactorily 
explained  why  the  survivors  of  the  latter  are  not 
recognized  in  the  proceedings  of  the  former. 

The  members  of  the  Franklin-Junto,  so  far  as  their 
names  have  come  down  to  us,  were  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, Joseph  Brientnal,  Thomas  Godfrey,  Nicholas 
Scull,  William  Parsons,  William  Mangridge,  Hugh 
Meredith,  Stephen  Potts,  George  Webb,  Eobert  Grace, 
William  Coleman,  Hugh  Roberts,  Philip  Syng,  Enoch 
Flower,  Joseph  Wharton,  William  Griffiths,  Luke 
Morris,  Joseph  Turner,  Joseph  Shippen,  Joseph 
Trotter,  Samuel  Jervis,  and  Samuel  Ehoads,  [and 
Thomas  Hopkinson.  (See  autobiography  in  Sparks, 
Vol.  I,  p.  138.)]  In  all  22  [23].  1  Sparks  81,  et.  seq.— 


59 

Roberts  Vaux,  15  Hazard's  Register,  183.     The  ex- 
isting members   of  the   Society-Junto   in   September 

1758,  the  date  of  the  earliest  extant  minutes,  were 
Francis  Rawle,  Charles  Thomson,   Stephen  Wooley, 
Peter  Chevalier,  J.  Mather,  Philip  Syng,  Jun.,  Isaac 
Paschall,  Edmund  Physick,  William  Franklin,  Joshua 
Howell,  William  Hopkins,   and  Paul  Jackson;  total 
twelve.      See  Junto   Minute   book;   as   also   Tabular 
Statement  marked  A,  of  the  attendance  of  the  So- 
ciety-Junto members,  appended  to  this  Report.1     By 
this  Statement,  -it  will  be  found  that  these  twelve 
members  continued  to  meet  more  or  less  regularly, 
except   William   Franklin,   who   was   always   absent, 
until  the   20th  of  June,   1760,  when   Samuel  Powel, 
elected   the  previous   March,   took  his   seat   for  the 
first  time.      Philip  Syng  is  usually  recorded  without 
the  affix  Junior ;  but  in  the  minutes  of  three  meetings ; 
namely, — those  of  Jan.   19th,   Nov.   30th,   Dec.   14th, 

1759,  he  is  entered  as  Philip  Syng,  Jun.     This  mem- 
ber,  who   died  in   November   1760,   was   the   son   of 
Philip  Syng,  of  the  Franklin-Junto,  who  will,  to  pre- 
vent confusion  be  hereafter  designated,  in  this  report, 
as  Philip  Syng,  Sen. 

Of  the  members  of  the  Franklin-Junto,  Franklin, 
[William]  Coleman,  Hugh  Roberts,  Philip  Syng,  Sen. 
and  Samuel  Rhoads  are  known  to  have  been  still 
living  in  Sep.  1758.  The  question  here,  arises,  why 
are  they  not  mentioned,  as  members,  in  the  minutes 
of  the  Society- Junto? 

1  Not  reproduced. 


60  EEPOET    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

The  Committee  will  first  inquire  why  Franklin  is 
not  mentioned  as  a  member.  This  objection  to  the 
supposition  that  Franklin  was  a  member  .of  the 
Society-Junto,  is  examined  by  Mr.  Du  Ponceau.  He 
says,  p.  17,  Franklin  "was  in  England,  and  it  was 
unknown  when  he  should  return.  He  was  probably 
more  considered  at  that  time  as  the  founder  and 
patron  of  that  Club  (for  such  in  fact  it  was)  than 
as  one  of  its  active  members. "  Again,  he  remarks, 
(page  18)  "as  his  representative  as  it  were,  we 
find  his  son  William  Franklin  in  this  list  of  members, 
though  he  does  not  appear  to  have  been  a  very  con- 
stant attendant.  He  went  often  to  the  country,— 
probably  to  New  Jersey,  of  which  he  was  appointed 
Governor  about  the  time  when  this  volume  ends." 

In  judging  of  the  probability  of  these  explanations, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Franklin  arrived  in 
England,  accompanied  by  his  son,  in  July  1757,  and 
returned  with  him  on  the  1st  of  Nov.  1762,  after  an 
absence  of  more  than  five  years.  If  the  explanation 
of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  be  admitted,  it  will  go  to  show 
that  while  Franklin,  though  a  member,  is  omitted 
to  be  mentioned  on  the  minutes,  because  he  was 
absent  in  England,  his  son  is  at  the  same  time 
recognized  as  a  member,  and  his  absence  from  the 
meetings,  recorded  twenty-one  times.  Is  it  con- 
ceivable that  the  father  would  not  be  noticed  at  all 
on  the  minutes,  and  the  son  so  frequently,  under 
circumstances  so  similar  for  both,  if  the  father  had 


61 

been  a  member?  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Du  Ponceau 
suggests  that  Franklin  was  considered  rather  as  the 
founder  and  patron  of  the  Club,  than  as  one  of  its 
active  members;  but  granting  this,  would  not  the 
Society-Junto  be  anxious,  nevertheless,  to  recognize 
him  as  a  member,  if  he  were  such,  and  record  him 
as  absent  in  England,  as  they  did  his  son.  Again, 
Mr.  Du  Ponceau  remarks  in  the  same  page  (18),  The 
Club  "  would  probably  have  been  dissolved,  like  so 
many  others,  if  Franklin  had  not  exerted  himself 
by  his  presence  while  here,  and  by  his  correspondence 
while  abroad,  to  keep  it  alive. "  The  Committee 
would  here  inquire  how  far  the  above  surmises  tally 
with  the  supposition,  just  before  expressed  by  Mr. 
Du  Ponceau,  that  Franklin,  inasmuch  as  he  was 
never  mentioned  on  the  minutes  of  the  Society-Junto, 
was  considered  rather  as  the  founder  and  patron  of 
the  Club  than  as  an  active  member! 

But,  in  tracing  the  progress  of  the  Society-Junto, 
a  new  objection  arises  to  the  supposition  that  Frank- 
lin was  one  of  its  early  members.  This  Junto,  under 
the  changed  name  of  "The  American  Society  for 
promoting  and  propagating  Useful  Knowledge,  held 
in  Philadelphia, "  which  was  adopted  on  the  13th  of 
Dec.  1766,  elected  Franklin  one  of  its  members,  on 
the  19th  of  February  1768.  The  name  was  again 
changed  in  September  1768,  the  new  title  given  be- 
ing "The  American  Society  held  at  Philadelphia  for 
promoting  Useful  Knowledge, "  which  name  it  con- 


62  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

tinned  to  bear  until  its  nnion  with  the  Philosophical 
Society  on  the  2nd  of  January  1769. 

It  is  natural  to  ask,  why  was  Franklin,  if  a  member 
of  the  Society-Junto,  elected  into  a  continuation  of 
the  same  association?  The  solution  of  this  difficulty 
is  thus  given  by  Mr.  Du  Ponceau.  "This  (his  elec- 
tion into  the  Society)  was  probably  done,  ex  majors 
cautela,  his  son  Governor  Franklin,  having  been  ad- 
mitted without  an  election,  at  the  preceding  meeting, 
on  merely  signing  the  amended  rules,  on  the  ground 
that  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  ancient  Society  (the 
Junto),  which  rule  of  admission,  they  said,  was  con- 
cluded on,  in  reviving  the  Society.  But  Franklin 
was  in  England,  and  could  not  sign  the  amended 
articles,  it  was  thought  best  to  elect  him.  The  So- 
ciety probably  contemplated  to  make  him  their  Presi- 
dent, and  wished  to  avoid  all  dispute,  particularly  if 
a  union  should  take  place,  which  might  not  have  been 
quite  despaired  of." 

The  Committee  deem  it  very  unlikely  that  the  mem- 
bership of  Franklin  in  the  Society- Junto  from  its  be- 
ginning, if  it  really  existed,  should  be  nowhere  no- 
ticed on  the  Minutes.  Such  a  membership  would 
have  been  a  cherished  fact,  not  to  be  disregarded  in 
making  up  the  records.  Nor  will  absence  in  Eng- 
land explain  the  omission,  since  a  contemporaneous 
absence  of  William  Franklin  did  not  prevent  them 
from  recording  him,  on  numerous  occasions,  as 
absent,  and  sometimes  in  the  express  words,  "absent 


63 

in  England/'  Again,  it  does  not  appear  how  the 
motive  of  greater  caution  should  induce  the  Society 
to  introduce  Franklin  by  a  new  election.  If  the 
members  were  conscious  of  the  fact  of  his  fellowship, 
they  had  nothing  to  do,  in  view  of  a  probable  union 
with  the  Philosophical  Society,  but  to  insert  his  name 
on  their  exchanged  list,  as  an  early  member;  as  they 
did  the  name  of  Charles  Thomson,  Isaac  Paschall, 
Edmund  Physick,  William  Franklin,  Joshua  Howell, 
and  William  Hopkins,  who,  if  elected  at  all,  must 
have  been  elected  before  the  22nd  of  September  1758, 
the  date  of  the  earliest  extant  minutes.  But,  even 
conceding  that  Franklin  was  a  member  from  an  early 
period  of  the  Society-Junto,  though  the  minutes 
show  no  trace  of  his  name  as  such,  would  not  his 
renomination  for  membership  be  coupled  with  some 
remark  on  the  minutes,  alluding  to  his  early  mem- 
bership, in  order  to  secure  the  credit  of  the  fact  to 
the  Association?  The  adoption  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau's 
views  that  the  election  of  Franklin  was  a  re-election, 
makes  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  American 
Society,  the  continuation  of  the  Society-Junto,  volun- 
tarily gave  a  recent  date  to  Franklin's  admission; 
whereas,  by  omitting  to  re-elect,  they  would  have 
been  entitled  to  place  his  name  among  the  list  of  the 
early  members.  In  reference  to  a  contemplated 
union  with  the  Philosophical  Society,  no  dispute 
could  have  arisen,  as  to  who  were  or  were  not  mem- 
bers; as  the  latter  body  would  not  have  the  right  to 


64  KEPOET    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

call  in  question  the  accuracy  of  the  list  which  might 
be  communicated. 

Mr.  Du  Ponceau  is  a  little  inaccurate  in  saying  that 
Governor  Franklin  was  admitted  at  the  meeting 
preceding  that  at  which  Dr.  Franklin  was  elected, 
on  merely  signing  the  Amended  Eules  etc.  The 
fact  is,  he  was  offered  an  admission  on  these  terms, 
but  he  never  availed  himself  of  the  offer,  having 
never  attended  or  signed.  The  minute  making  the 
offer  is  in  these  words : — 

"His  Excellency  William  Franklin,  Esq.,  being 
now  the  only  member  of  the  ancient  Society  who  has 
not  signed  the  rules  in  this  book,  Dr.  Evans  is  de- 
sired to  inform  him,  that,  agreeable  to  what  was 
concluded  on  in  reviving  the  Society,  if  he  chooses 
to  sign  our  Kules  and  give  us  a  meeting,  he  shall  be 
considered  as  a  regular  member. "  Junto  Minutes, 
Part  2,  82. 

By  this  extract  it  appears  that  William  Franklin 
is  deemed  to  be  the  only  member  of  the  ancient 
Society  who  had  not  signed  the  Eules  in  the  Second 
Part  of  the  Junto  Minute  book.  Now,  if  Franklin 
had  been  a  member  of  the  ancient  Society  here  re- 
ferred to,  this  would  not  have  been  true;  for  he  had 
never  signed. 

Of  the  twelve  members  with  which  the  minutes  of 
the  Society-Junto  begin,  Francis  Rawle  and  Philip 
Syng,  Jun.  are  known  to  have  been  dead  at  the  time 
referred  to  (February  12,  1768) ;  Chevalier  had  for- 


ON  ME.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTOKY.  65 

felted  membership ;  Wooley,  Mather  and  Jackson  had 
long  since  moved  away,  and  in  1768,  were  probably 
dead,  as  they  are  not  reported  as  members  on  the 
exchanged  list.  Of  the  remaining  six,  Thomson, 
Isaac  Paschall,  and  Physick  had  signed.  By  this 
statement  it  would  seem  that  Joshua  Ho  well  and 
William  Hopkins  were  also  members  of  the  ancient 
Society  who  had  not  signed  in  the  book  referred  to, 
as  well  as  William  Franklin.  The  Committee  cannot 
explain  why,  in  the  extract  above  given  from  the 
minutes,  Howell  and  Hopkins  are  over-looked,  unless 
it  is  because  they  had  signed  in  the  first  part  of 
the  Junto  minute  book. 

In  pursuing  the  chain  of  evidence  in  relation  to 
the  point  under  consideration,  the  Committee  will 
anticipate  a  little,  by  calling  the  attention  of  the  So- 
ciety to  a  letter  from  Charles  Thomson  to  Dr.  Frank- 
lin, contained  in  Mr.  Fisher's  communication.  It 
has  already  been  mentioned  that  Dr.  Franklin  was 
elected  a  member  of  the  American  Society,  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  Society-Junto,  on  the  19th  of 
February,  1768.  On  the  4th  of  November  following, 
he  was  elected  its  first  President  under  a  new  or- 
ganization of  officers;  namely, — a  President,  Vice- 
President,  etc.  instead  of  the  former  one,  of  Chair- 
man, Secretary,  and  Treasurer.  At  the  same  elec- 
tion, Thomson  was  chosen  one  of  the  Secretaries,  and 
it  became  his  duty,  as  such,  to  inform  Franklin  of 
his  election.  The  letter  above  referred  to,  dated 


66  EEPOET    OP    THE    COMMITTEE 

November  6th,  1768,  was  written  on  this  occasion, 
and  contains  the  following  remarkable  passage : 

"You  remember  the  Society  to  which  I  belonged, 
which  was  begun  in  1750.  By  the  death  and  removal 
of  some  of  the  members,  it  dwindled  for  some  time  to 
that  degree  that  I  was  apprehensive  of  its  dissolu- 
tion. " 

After  describing  the  revival  of  the  Society,  he 
goes  on,  first  to  inform  Franklin  that  he  was  elected 
a  member  of  it  on  the  19th  of  February  1768,  and 
subsequently  its  President. 

Is  it  conceivable  that  Thomson  did  not  know  that 
Franklin  was  an  early  member  of  this  Association, 
if  he  really  were  such?  Or,  if  it  be  admitted  that 
he  knew  the  fact,  supposing  for  a  moment  that  it 
was  a  fact,  and  that  his  recent  election  was  to  secure 
his  fellowship  beyond  dispute,  would  he  have  written 
as  he  did  to  Franklin  1  Instead  of  saying  ' '  You 
remember  the  Society  to  which  7  belonged "  he 
would  have  said  "to  which  we  belonged."  In 
place  of  introducing  the  fact  of  his  election  without 
comment,  he  would  have  alluded  to  his  early  mem- 
bership as  a  known  fact,  and  asked  him  not  to  be 
surprised  at  his  new  election,  as  it  was  intended  to 
fix  his  membership  beyond  dispute. 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  the  earliest 
known  minutes  of  the  Society-Junto,  are  dated 
September  22nd,  1758.  They  begin  abruptly,  and 
evidently  relate  to  an  Association  which  had  existed 


67 

for  some  time.  The  internal  evidence  of  the  minute 
book  does  not  go  farther  back  than  the  18th  of 
December  1757,  from  which  date  room-rent  and 
" necessaries "  appear  to  have  been  paid  for;  and  it 
was  not  until  the  letter  of  Charles  Thomson  came  to 
light,  that  our  Society  has  been  enabled  to  fix  1750  as 
the  year  in  which  the  Society-Junto  was  established. 
It  is,  indeed,  true  that  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  controverts 
this  position  in  the  supplementary  comments  which 
he  furnished  to  the  Committee  since  he  had  the 
opportunity  of  examining  Mr.  Fisher's  communica- 
tion. Our  venerable  President  conceives  that  the 
Society  of  1750  is  really  the  same  as  the  Franklin- 
Junto,  though  it  may  have  had  its  interruptions, 
breaking  its  continuity.  He  furthermore,  conceives 
that  great  weight  must  be  given  to  the  assertion  of 
the  Eev.  Dr.  William  Smith,  in  his  Eulogium  on 
Franklin  in  1792,  that  the  Franklin- Junto  "became 
at  last  the  foundation  of  the  American  Philosophical 
Society."  If  it  became  the  foundation  of  our  So- 
ciety, it  could  only  have  become  such  through  the 
Society-Junto,  which  is  thus  proved,  admitting  Dr. 
Smith's  accuracy,  to  be  identical  with  it.  But 
Thomson's  testimony  is  directly  contradictory,  that 
the  Society-Junto  began  in  1750.  Now  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau  remarks,  both  Smith  and  Thomson  were 
men  of  veracity  and  endeavors  to  reconcile  their 
statements  by  supposing  that  Thomson  did  not 
know  that  the  Society,  to  which  he  referred  in  his 


REPORT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

letter,  was  really  the  Franklin- Junto  revived,  after, 
perhaps,  an  interruption;  but  mistook  it  for  a  new 
Society.  Now  the  Committee  conceive  that  this  is 
not  a  question  of  veracity  between  two  men,  where 
a  contradiction  must  be  explained  away,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  imputation  of  untruth  to  one  of  the  parties. 
On  the  contrary,  they  view  it  only  as  a  question  of 
the  probable  accuracy  of  two  gentlemen,  in  relation 
to  a  doubtful  point.  Under  this  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion, they  apprehend  that  Thomson  is  more  likely 
to  be  accurate,  writing  in  1768,  than  Smith  in  1792. 
Besides,  Dr.  Smith,  preparing  an  Eulogium,  and 
not  a  formal  history  of  the  Society,  might  easily 
have  fallen  into  the  natural  error  of  supposing  the 
existence  of  but  t>ne  Junto,  an  opinion  which  some 
members  of  this  Committee  admit  they  entertained, 
before  they  had  investigated  the  subject. 

If,  however,  weight  is  still  to  be  given  to  the 
assertion  of  Dr.  Smith,  which,  it  may  be  remarked, 
is  loosely  expressed  in  not  alluding  to  the  Philosoph- 
ical Society  as  part  of  the  foundation  of  our  Society, 
the  Committee  think  it  is  completely  neutralized  by 
the  statement  contained  in  the  following  extract  from 
Dr.  Thomas  Bond's  oration  before  our  Society,  de- 
livered on  the  21st  of  May  1782. 

Franklin  "gradually  established  many  necessary 
institutions,  among  which  was  this  Philosophical 
Society,  so  early  as  '43,  when  the  plan  was  formed 
and  published,  the  members  chosen,  and  an  invita- 


69 

tion  given  to  all  ingenious  persons  to  co-operate  and 
correspond  with  them  on  the  laudable  occasion. " 

Here  Dr.  Bond  distinctly  recognizes  the  Philosoph- 
ical Society  as  the  elder  parent  of  our  institution, 
and  its  earliest  date  to  be  1743. 

The  Committee,  having  considered  the  assumption 
that  Franklin  was  a  member  of  the  Society-Junto, 
because  it  was  no  other  than  the  Franklin-Junto,  and 
examined  all  the  suggestions  thrown  out  by  Mr. 
Du  Ponceau  to  explain  why,  being  a  member,  he  is 
never  mentioned  as  such  on  the  minutes,  as  either 
present  or  absent,  will  now  proceed  to  give,  as  more 
immediately  connected  with  this  part  of  the  subject, 
a  connected  view  of  what  is  known  or  probable  in 
relation  to  the  Society-Junto. 

Besides  the  minutes  of  this  Junto  in  the  possession 
of  the  Society,  the  Committee  have  no  other  source 
of  information  than  the  important  letter  of  Charles 
Thomson  already  referred  to.  These  minutes  were 
originally  in  two  volumes;  one,  commencing  with 
September  22nd,  1758,  the  other,  with  April  25th, 
1766.  At  the  end  of  the  first  volume,  some  irregular 
minutes  of  the  Society,  after  the  union  (namely 
from  1774  to  1779)  had  been  inserted.  Mr.  J. 
Francis  Fisher,  at  the  time  one  of  our  Secretaries, 
kindly  undertook  to  arrange  our  early  minutes,  and 
with  that  view  took  to  pieces  the  first  volume  above 
referred  to,  in  order  to  separate  the  part  relating 
to  the  united  Society,  and  had  the  Junto  part  of  it 


70  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

substantially  bound,  in  one  volume,  with  what  was 
originally  called  the  second  volume  of  the  minutes 
of  the  Junto.  It  is  thus  explained  why  there  are 
two  sets  of  paging  in  the  Junto  minute  book,  which 
makes  it  necessary  to  distinguish  what  were  orig- 
inally the  first  and  second  volumes,  as  the  first  and 
second  parts. 

The  Committee,  relying  on  the  statement  in  Charles 
Thomson's  letter,  date  the  beginning  of  the  Society- 
Junto  in  1750.  What  happened  between  that  year 
and  the  22nd  of  September,  1758,  the  date  of  the 
earliest  minutes,  the  Committee  have  no  means  of 
determining.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  So- 
ciety had  been  meeting  for  sometime;  for  the  book 
opens  abruptly  with  a  minute  of  the  above  date, 
without  any  indication  of  a  commencement  after  an 
interruption.  It  continued  to  meet  with  few  inter- 
ruptions, or  omissions  from  the  minutes,  until 
February  9th,  1761,  when  a  hiatus  occurs,  until  the 
7th  of  August  succeeding;  though  a  note  is  given 
in  the  handwriting  of  Charles  Thomson,  that  in  the 
interval  "the  meetings  'were  usually  kept  up,  but 
so  few  attended,  and  so  little  was  done,  that  no 
minutes  were  made."  Junto  Minute  Book,  Part 
1,  81.  In  this  note,  an  intermediate  meeting  on  the 
30th  of  July,  is  incidentally  mentioned,  at  which 
the  "Company"  agree  to  a  set  of  Rules,  prepared 
by  Edmund  Physick  and  Charles  Thomson,  who  had 
been  appointed  to  recollect  and  draw  them  up,  "as 


ON  MK.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTOKY.  71 

agreeable  as  possible  to  the  ancient  Rules  and  By- 
Laws."  These  Rules  immediately  follow  this  note, 
and  form  the  first  record,  occurring  in  the  minutes, 
of  the  Laws  by  which  the  Junto  was  governed. 
Here  the  four  remakable  qualifications  of  members 
are  first  given. 

From  the  7th  of  August,  the  Society-Junto  con- 
tinue to  meet  regularly  until  the  16th  of  October, 
after  which  no  minutes  are  recorded  until  September 
3rd,  1762.  In  this  interval  of  eleven  months,  no 
meetings  took  place,  as  is  shown  by  a  remark  en- 
tered on  the  minutes  on  the  10th  of  September, 
1762,  to  the  following  effect: — "As  Charles  Moore 
was  formerly  ballotted  for  and  approved,  and  E. 
Physick,  who  was  appointed  to  speak  to  him,  informs 
that  the  only  reason  for  not  introducing  him,  was 
that  Mr.  Moore  was  about  taking  a  journey  to  Mary- 
land, soon  after  which  the  Society  was  discontinued; 
now  we  are  met  again  and  he  is  returned,  E.  Physick 
is  desired  to  speak  to  him,  and  if  he  is  willing  to 
become  a  member,  to  introduce  him  next  evening. " 

Now    Charles    Moore    was    elected    on    the    2nd    of 

• 

October  1761,  and  two  meetings  are  recorded  subse- 
quently, before  the  suspension  of  the  meetings  above 
referred  to.  The  meetings  having  been  thus  resumed 
on  the  3rd  of  September,  1762,  as  above  stated,  six 
meetings,  and  two  attempts  at  meetings  took  place, 
up  to  the  22nd  of  October  following,  being  the  only 
meetings  recorded  this  year.  The  minutes  of  the 


72  KEPOET    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

22nd  of  October  close  the  first  part   of  the   Junto 
minute  book. 

After  this  time,  no  minutes   are  known  to  exist, 
until  the  25th  of  April  1766,   an  interval   of  three 
and  a  half  years,  when  the  second  part  of  the  Junto 
minutes  begins.      The  question  here  arises,  did  the 
Junto  meet  during  the  whole  or  a  part  of  this  in- 
terval, the  minutes  having  been  lost;  or  was  there  a 
suspension    of    the    Society   for    the    whole    period? 
It  is  not  possible  to  answer  this  question  positively; 
but  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  some  meet- 
ings took  place  in  this  interval.      In  the  first  place, 
the  minutes  open  without  any  allusion  to  a  suspen- 
sion of  meetings;  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  a  manner 
to  indicate   continuity  with  meetings   recently  held. 
The  turns  of  members  to  act  as  Chairman,  and  to 
propose   queries   are   mentioned;   and   at   a  meeting 
held    shortly   afterwards,    (namely,    on   the   23rd   of 
May)  Owen  Biddle  and  Isaac  Paschall  are  referred 
to  as  having  been  appointed  to  revise  the  Laws;  and 
as  their  appointment  is  not  recorded  in  the  minutes 
beginning  with  the  25th  of  April  1766,  it  is  evident 
that  they  must  have  been  charged  with  that  duty  at 
a  meeting  earlier  than  that  with  which  the  second 
part  of  the  Junto  minute  book  opens.     Besides  these 
considerations,  four  members,  Moses  Bartram,  Isaac 
Zane,    Joseph   Paschall    and    Owen   Biddle,    are    re- 
corded as  present  in  this  second  part,  whose  elections 
are  not  contained  in  the  minutes  in  the  possession 


73 

of  our  Society;  and  two  others,  Isaac  Bartram  and 
James  Pearson,  though  elected  at  an  early  period, 
are  not  known  to  have  been  introduced.  It  is  rea- 
sonable, therefore,  to  conclude  that  the  first  four 
names  were  elected  and  introduced,  and  the  last  two 
introduced  within  the  long  period  for  which  we  pos- 
sess no  minutes.  Taking  this  view  of  the  subject, 
the  chasm  in  the  Junto  minutes  of  three  and  a  half 
years,  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  indicative  necessarily 
of  a  suspension  of  the  Society,  but  to  be  attributed 
rather  to  the  loss  of  the  records.  This  is  also  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau,  and  the  Committee  is 
happy  to  agree  with  him  on  this  point. 

The  draught  of  revised  Laws,  prepared  by  Owen 
Biddle  and  Isaac  Paschall,  was  finally  passed  on  the 
30th  of  May  1766.  They  are  the  Junto  Laws,  but 
slightly  altered,  already  alluded  to  as  adopted  on 
the  30th  of  July  1761.  The  four  qualifications  are 
still  retained,  but  the  name  Junto  is  omitted,  and 
the  title  of  the  Society,  held  under  advisement  un- 
til the  13th  of  December  1766,  when  the  name 
"The  American  Society  for  promoting  and  propa- 
gating Useful  Knowledge,  held  in  Philadelphia, " 
was  adopted.  Thus,  though  the  Society  changed 
its  name,  its  Junto  organization  was  still  preserved. 

After  this  period,  the  Society  underwent  no  change 
in  its  name  or  organization,  until  the  23rd  of  Sep- 
tember 1768,  when  it  became  "The  American  So- 
ciety held  at  Philadelphia  for  promoting  Useful 


74  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

Knowledge, "  which  title  it  continued  to  bear  until 
its  union  with  the  Philosophical  Society  on  the  2nd 
of  January  1769.  On  the  occasion  of  this  last 
change  of  name,  the  Laws  were  much  altered,  the 
Junto  qualifications  were  dispensed  with,  and  an 
6 1  Obligation "  to  be  signed  by  members,  substituted. 
Instead  of  having  merely  a  Chairman,  Secretary,  and 
Treasurer,  the  Laws  called  for  a  President,  Vice- 
President,  two  Secretaries,  three  curators,  and  a 
Treasurer.  The  election  under  this  new  organiza- 
tion took  place  on  the  4th  of  November,  and  Dr. 
Franklin  was  chosen  first  President,  as  has  been 
already  mentioned  in  a  former  part  of  this  Eeport. 
This  sketch  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  Society- 
Junto  is  sufficient  for  this  Report.  For  the  details, 
the  Society  is  referred  to  the  tabular  statement, 
and  to  the  Abstract  from  the  Junto-Minute  book, 
marked  B. 

The  Committee  have  already  mentioned  that  they 
agree  with  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  in  believing  it  probable 
that  meetings  of  the  Society-Junto  took  place  within 
the  long  period  for  which  we  possess  no  minutes; 
but  they  cannot  go  so  far  as  to  suppose  with  him, 
that  an  intermediate  volume  of  minutes  did  exist,  but 
was  lost,  comprising  that  period.  Our  President 
rests  his  opinion  mainly  on  the  fact  that  Dr.  Smith, 
in  his  Eulogium  on  Franklin,  tells  us  "that  a  book 
containing  many  of  the  questions  discussed  by  the 
Junto,  was,  on  the  formation  of  the  American  Philo- 


ON  MK.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTORY.  75 

sophical  Society,  put  into  his  hands  for  the  purpose 
of  being  digested,  and  in  due  time  published  among 
the  Transactions  of  that  body."  Mr.  Du  Ponceau 
thinks  it  probable  that  this  book  was  the  intermediate 
volume  which  he  infers  to  have  existed,  and  attempts 
to  fix  its  date  by  a  question  quoted  from  it  by  Dr. 
Smith;  namely, — "How  may  the  possession  of  the 
Lakes  be  improved  to  our  advantage,"  which,  he 
says,  judging  historically,  could  "only  have  been 
asked  after  the  cession  of  Canada  in  1763."  But  it 
is  not  necessary  to  bring  any  ingenious  reasoning  to 
bear  upon  this  point ;  for  the  Committee  find  that  the 
identical  question,  above  quoted,  was  proposed  by 
Isaac  Paschall  on  the  5th  of  October  1759.  See 
Junto  Minute  book,  under  that  date,  Part  1,  p.  39. 
Thus  the  attempt  to  fix  the  date  of  an  intermediate 
volume  of  minutes  fails;  and  the  Committee  may 
add  their  strong  conviction,  that  the  book  referred 
to  by  Dr.  Smith,  was  no  other  than  the  first  part  of 
the  present  Junto  Minute  book,  which  was  originally 
the  first  volume  of  Junto  Minutes.  This  book  con- 
tains "many  of  the  questions  discussed  by  the 
Junto,"  and  is  preceded  by  a  list  of  some  of  them. 
So  strongly,  however,  is  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  impressed 
with  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  an  intermediate 
volume,  that  he  reasons  upon  it  as  a  fact,  and  says, 
"The  loss  of  the  missing  volume  is  so  much  the  more 
to  be  regretted,  as  it  included  a  period  when  Frank- 
lin was  in  this  country,  and  probably  took  an  active 


76  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

part  in  the  Junto  proceedings. ' '  p.  19.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  add,  that  the  Committee,  having  given 
a  decided  opinion  that  Franklin  was  not  a  member 
of  the  Society-Junto  until  February  1768,  are  fully 
convinced  that  he  never  took  any  part,  active  or 
otherwise,  in  its  proceedings. 

Having  considered  the  question,  why  Franklin,  if 
a  member  of  the  Society-Junto  became  the  founder 
of  the  Franklin- Junto,  was  never  recognized  as  such 
in  the  former  until  a  late  period,  and  then  by  election, 
and  answered  the  explanations  given  of  the  silence 
of  the  Society- Junto  minutes  in  relation  to  the  point; 
the  question  recurs,  why  were  not  William  Coleman, 
Hugh  Eoberts,  Philip  Syng,  Sen.,  and  Samuel  Ehoads, 
the  other  surviving  members  of  the  Franklin-Junto 
during  the  existence  of  the  Society-Junto,  recognized 
as  members  of  the  latter! 

Mr.  Du  Ponceau,  in  his  paper,  recognizes  Coleman 

» 

and  Franklin  as  the  only  survivors  of  the  Franklin- 
Junto,  at  the  time  of  the  union  which  formed  the 
present  Society,  p.  11.  Mr.  Fisher  mentions  a  third, 
Hugh  Eoberts,  and  very  naturally  inquires,  why  is 
he  not  mentioned,  as  either  present  or  absent,  on  the 
minutes  of  the  Society-Junto,  especially  as  Franklin, 
in  a  letter  to  him,  dated  February  26th,  1761,  says, 
"You  tell  me  you  sometimes  visit  the  ancient  Junto." 
The  letter  of  Eoberts,  to  which  Franklin 's  is  an 
answer,  was  probably  written  in  the  latter  part  of 
1760,  and  for  that  year  we  possess  the  minutes  of 


ON  MR.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTOBY.  77 

the  Society-Junto  for  every  month  except  October, 
and  it  will  be  found  that  not  only  the  names  of  mem- 
bers present,  but  those  of  absentees  are  recorded. 
Mr.  Du  Ponceau,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Kane,  answers 
this  objection  thus: — "Mr.  Roberts,  at  that  time, 
was  advanced  in  age,  and  full  of  business.  He  was 
not  probably  a  regular  member  of  that  Club,  subject 
to  fines,  and  contributing  to  their  expenses.  He  was, 
I  suppose,  welcome  to  their  meetings  as  an  old  asso- 
ciate, and  in  that  sense,  I  presume,  his  friend  Frank- 
lin urged  him  to  attend  the  meetings.  In  that  case 
his  name  would  not  necessarily  appear  in  the  list  of 
present  and  absent  members  at  the  head  of  the 
minutes  of  each  meeting. "  In  reply  to  this  ex- 
planation it  may  be  urged  that  Mr.  Eoberts  in  1760 
was  only  54  years  of  age,  and  that  the  usage  of  the 
minutes  being  to  note  those  present,  the  name  even 
of  an  honorary  member,  admitting  that  there  were 
such,  would  have  been  recorded.  What  makes  this 
more  probable,  is  a  passage  in  the  minutes  of  Febru- 
ary 9th,  1761,  when  the  members  met  at  supper  at 
Whitebread's,  at  which  George  Bryan,  a  former 
member,  is  recorded  as  present  by  invitation.  Again, 
if  Roberts  was  a  member,  honorary  or  not,  of  the 
Society- Junto,  why  does  not  his  name  appear  in 
the  list  of  members  furnished  to  the  Philosophical 
Society  at  the  time  of  Union?  The  same  remark 
applies  to  William  Coleman,  on  the  assumption  of 
his  membership  in  the  Society-Junto.  Surely  these 


78  REPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

names  would  not  have  been  overlooked,  in  giving  the 
list  of  surviving  members  to  a  rival  Society,  with  a 
view  to  a  union  with  it.  The  Philosophical  Society 
did  not  act  thus;  for  this  very  William  Coleman  is 
reported  as  an  original  member,  dating  from  1743, 
though,  so  far  as  the  minutes  of  this  Society  in  our 
possession  show,  he  never  attended  the  meetings.  It 
may  be  added  that  Hugh  Eoberts,  who  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau  supposes  was,  in  1760,  a  member  of  the 
Society-Junto,  though  not  a  regular  one  on  account 
of  his  advanced  age  and  full  business,  was,  in  Janu- 
ary 1768,  elected  a  member  of  the  Philosophical  So- 
ciety. It  js  true,  however,  that  he  never  attended 
so  far  as  the  minutes  show. 

There  still  remain  to  be  considered  the  names  of 
two  other  individuals,  namely,  Philip  Syng,  Sen.  and 
Samuel  Ehoads,  who  were  surviving  members  of  the 
Franklin- Junto,  during  the  existence  of  the  Society- 
Junto,  and  the  question  recurs,  why  were  they  not 
present  at  the  meetings  or  recorded  in  the  list  of 
members'?  These  persons  are  not  mentioned  as  sur- 
vivors of  the  Franklin- Junto  by  our  President,  and 
the  Committee  will  not  undertake  to  conjecture  what 
would  be  the  course  of  his  argument  in  regard  to 
them.  They  will  simply  answer  the  question  they 
have  put,  themselves,  and  say  that  Syng  and  Ehoads 
did  not  attend  the  meetings  of  the  Society-Junto, 
because  they  were  not  members.  It  is  true  that 
Philip  Syng,  Sr.  refers  to  a  "Junto,"  in  a  letter 


79 

addressed  to  Franklin,  dated  March  1st,  1766,  and 
which  was  found  among  the  Franklin  papers,  in  the 
possession  of  the  Society.  His  words  are  "The 
Junto  fainted  last  summer  in  the  hot  weather,  and  has 
not  yet  revived.  Your  presence  might  reanimate  it, 
without  which  I  apprehend  it  will  never  recover " 

This  suspension  of  "the  Junto"  is  referred  to  the 
summer  of  1765,  and  the  question  arises,  does  Philip 
Syng  refer  to  the  Society- Junto?  Unfortunately, 
the  summer  of  1765  is  within  the  long  period  of 
three  and  a  half  years,  for  which  we  have  no  minutes. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  expression  "fainted  last  sum- 
mer," implies  that  the  Junto  alluded  to  met  im- 
mediately before  that  period,  the  Committee  are 
willing  to  grant  the  inference;  but  the  absence  of 
minutes  of  such  meetings  is  not  to  be  taken  as  proof 
that  the  allusion  cannot  be  to  the  Society- Junto ;  for 
the  Committee  have  admitted  it  as  probable,  that 
some  meetings  took  place  within  the  period  of  the 
great  chasm  in  the  minutes,  for  reasons  already 
given.  A  passage  in  a  letter  of  Hugh  Roberts  to 
Franklin,  dated  May  20th,  1765,  also  found  among 
the  Franklin  papers,  bears  upon  this  point.  He 
says,  "I  sometimes  visit  the  worthy  remains  of  the 
ancient  Junto,  for  whom  I  have  a  high  esteem;  but, 
alas,  the  political,  polemical  divisions  have,  in  some 
measure,  contributed  to  lessen  that  harmony  we 
there  formerly  enjoyed."  Thus  the  "Junto"  was 
sometimes  visited  by  Hugh  Roberts  in  the  spring  of 


80  REPORT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

1765,  just  before  the  time  when  Syng  said  it  fainted. 
If  the  " Junto"  here  alluded  to  could  be  shown  to 
be  the  Society-Junto,  then  the  identity  of  the  two 
would  be  proved.  The  absence  of  minutes  for  the 
spring  of  1765  would  seem  to  be  against  the  supposi- 
tion of  identity;  but  so  long  as  it  is  conceded  that 
meetings  may  have  taken  place  at  some  time  within 
the  period  embraced  by  the  long  chasm,  and  conse- 
quently, that  meetings  may  have  been  held  in  the 
spring  of  1765,  the  minutes  of  which  have  been  lost, 
the  question  cannot  be  decided  by  the  mere  absence 
of  minutes.  But  the  question  is  decided  by  other 
circumstances.  Syng  and  Eoberts,  in  the  above 
extracts,  evidently  speak  of  an  association  in  which 
they  take  a  deep  interest;  and  not  of  the  Society- 
Junto,  in  which,  considering  that  their  names  are 
never  mentioned,  although  we  possess  the  minutes 
of  it  for  several  consecutive  years,  they  could  not  be 
plausibly  alleged  to  take  any  interest  at  all.  It  is, 
therefore,  clear  to  the  Committee  that  they  alluded, 
in  their  letters,  to  the  Franklin-Junto,  of  which  they 
are  known  to  have  been  members,  and  which,  in  the 
absence  of  satisfactory  proof  to  the  contrary,  must 
be  held  to  have  been  an  Association,  distinct  from 
the  Society-Junto,  and  existing  contemporaneously 
with  it. 

After  the  long  interval  for  which  we  have  no  rec- 
ords of  the  Society-Junto,  the  minutes  recommence 
on  the  25th  of  April,  1766,  a  month  and  twenty-five 


ON  MK.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTOKY.  81 

days  after  the  date  of  Syng's  letter.  Now  it  may 
be  alleged  that  the  25th  of  April  1766  was  the  date 
of  a  revival  of  the  Association  which  is  referred  to 
by  Syng,  and  which,  he  apprehends,  "will  never 
recover. "  The  dates  here  give  some  plausibility 
to  this  supposition.  But,  assuming  it  for  a  moment 
to  be  well-founded,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  Syng,  rejoiced  at  its  revival,  would  have  given 
to  the  Society- Junto  the  countenance  of  his  presence ; 
or  are  we  to  believe  that,  contrary  to  the  plan  of 
the  minutes,  he  was  sometimes  present,  without  his 
name  being  recorded! 

While,  therefore,  the  Committee  think  it  a  strained 
inference  that  the  survivors  of  the  Franklin-Junto 
were  members  of  the  Society- Junto,  it  is  remarkable 
to  find  that  two  of  them,  Syng  and  Ehoads,  are  active 
members  of  the  Philosophical  Society  before  the  union, 
and  of  the  United  Society  after  it.  Ehoads,  indeed, 
was  an  original  member  of  the  Philosophical  Society, 
dating  from  its  establishment  in  1743.  Syng,  how- 
ever, was  not  elected  until  January  1768.  Supposing 
them  to  have  been  members  of  any  kind,  irregular 
or  honorary  of  the  Society-Junto,  afterwards  the 
American  Society,  and  for  that  reason  never  men- 
tioned on  the  minutes,  would  they  not  at  least  have 
been  included  in  the  list  of  members  handed  to  the 
Philosophical  Society?  Again,  if  it  be  alleged  as 
probable  that  the  Secretaries  of  the  American  So- 
ciety forgot  to  insert  the  name  of  Syng  and  Rhoads 


82  REPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

on  their  list  of  members,  would  not  their  names 
occurring  in  the  Philosophical  Society's  list,  remind 
them,  of  their  omission;  or,  finally,  if  the  American 
Society  were  not  aware  of  their  membership,  would 
not  the  individuals  themselves  remind  them  of  it! 
But  the  supposition  that  Syng  and  Ehoads  were 
members  of  the  American  Society  becomes  more 
difficult  to  believe,  when  we  find  them  on  the  Com- 
mittee of  conference,  appointed  by  the  Philosophical 
Society,  to  treat  with  the  American  Society.  This 
conference  would  have  brought  them  so  decidedly 
in  contact  with  the  American  Society  that  their 
membership  in  it  could  not  be  overlooked;  unless  it 
be  assumed  that  neither  they  themselves  nor  the 
American  Society  knew  that  they  were  members! 

The  Committee  have  said  that  Syng  and  Rhoads 
were  active  members  of  the  Philosophical  Society  up 
to  the  time  of  union,  and,  afterwards,  of  the  United 
Society.  They  were  repeatedly  present  at  the  meet- 
ings of  the  former  in  the  year  1768,  and  also  frequent 
attendants  of  the  United  Society,  of  which  Syng  was 
elected  first  Treasurer,  and  Ehoads  repeatedly  chosen 
a  Vice-President.  Are  these  the  kind  of  men  that 
would  probably  have  been  entirely  unnoticed  by  the 
American  Society,  if  they  had  really  been  members 
of  it? 

The  Committee  believe  that  all  of  the  difficulties 
connected  with  this  subject  will  disappear  upon  the 
supposition  of  the  distinct,  and  for  a  part  of  the 


83 

time,  contemporaneous  existence  of  the  Franklin  and 
Society-Juntos.  From  the  autumn  of  1727  until 
1750,  the  Franklin- Junto  can  be  traced,  unembar- 
rassed by  the  alleged  existence  of  another  Associa- 
tion of  the  same  name.  From  that  year,  being  the 
time  of  the  establishment,  according  to  Thomson, 
of  the  Society- Junto,  the  difficulty  begins.  On  the 
16th  of  July,  1753,  and  the  16th  of  September  1758, 
Franklin,  in  writing  to  Roberts,  refers  to  the 
" Junto'7;  but  as  these  dates  occur  between  1750, 
and  September  22nd,  1758,  for  which  interval  we 
possess  no  minutes  of  the  Society-Junto,  these  refer- 
ences throw  no  light  on  the  question  of  the  identity, 
or  non-identity  of  the  two  Juntos.  The  next  letter 
in  which  Franklin  refers  to  "the  Junto"  is  dated 
February  26th,  1761;  and  the  Committee  have 
already  given  their  opinion  that  the  allusion  in  it 
could  not  refer  to  the  Society-Junto,  as  it  mentions 
the  occasional  attendance  of  Hugh  Eoberts,  who  is 
not  noticed  as  present  or  absent  at  any  meeting  pre- 
ceding the  date  of  the  letter,  though  the  minutes  for 
that  period  are  extant.  Franklin  was  in  Philadel- 
phia from  November  1762,  to  November  1764,  but, 
unfortunately,  these  two  years  occur  within  the  long 
interval  for  which  we  possess  no  Junto  Minutes. 
The  Committee  have  already  given  their  reasons  for 
believing  that  the  allusions  to  "the  Junto "  that 
occur  in  the  correspondence  of  Roberts  &  Syng  with 
Franklin,  in  1765-66,  could  not  have  meant  the 


84  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

Society-Junto.  After  these  years,  the  Committee 
find  no  reference  to  "the  Junto,"  until  June  24th 
1785,  under  which  date  Koberts  wrote  to  Franklin 
as  follows: — "Philip  Syng,  the  only  other  surviving 
member  here,  of  the  old  Junto,  labours  under  in- 
firmities, keeps  much  at  home,  where  I  can  seldom 
go  to  visit  him."  Hazard's  Register,  XV,  184. 

If  the  Franklin  and  Society-Juntos  were  the  same, 
would  Eoberts  speak  of  Philip  Syng  as  the  only 
other  surviving  member  of  the  Junto  in  Philadelphia 
besides  himself!  Would  he  not  rather  have  said, 
that  besides  himself,  the  surviving  members  of  the 
Junto  were  Charles  Thomson,  Edmund  Physick, 
Moses  Bartram,  Joseph  Paschall,  Owen  Biddle, 
James  Pearson,  Samuel  Powel,  Nicholas  Wain,  Cle- 
ment Biddle,  Dr.  John  Morgan,  not  to  mention  others, 
who  were  members  of  the  Society- Junto,  still  living, 
when  Eoberts  wrote.  Neither  can  it  be  contended 
that  Roberts  meant  to  say  that  Syng  was  the  only 
other  surviving  original  member;  for  neither  Syng 
nor  Eoberts  were  original  members  of  the  Franklin- 
Junto.  See  Franklin's  list,  1,  Sparks,  81.  While  it 
is  thus  proved  that  the  expression  of  Eoberts,  in  this 
letter,  is  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  the 
two  Juntos  were  the  same,  it  is  perfectly  accurate  as 
applied  to  the  Franklin- Junto,  which  evidently  con- 
tinued to  meet  a  long  time  after  it  ceased  to  fill  up 
vacancies  by  new  elections,  and,  at  last,  became  ex- 
tinct by  the  death  of  the  last  survivor,  Franklin. 


85 

The  Committee  are  aware  that  Franklin,  in  1771, 
fixes  the  duration  of  his  Junto  at  about  40  years. 
His  words  are,  alluding  to  William  Coleman  "Our 
friendship  continued  without  interruption  to  his 
death,  upwards  of  forty  years;  and  the  Club  con- 
tinued almost  as  long.'7  Again  he  says,  in  a  letter 
to  Hugh  Koberts,  dated  July  7th,  1765,  "It  wants 
but  about  two  years  of  forty  since  it  was  established. ' ' 
Thus  the  Junto  lasted  almost  as  long  as  a  friendship 
that  had  continued  upwards  of  forty  years ;  and  as 
it  began  in  1727,  it  may  be  said,  so  far  as  this  evi- 
dence goes,  to  have  ceased  to  exist  about  the  year 
1767.  Now,  if  this  reasoning  be  admitted,  it  is  fatal 
to  the  supposition  that  the  Franklin-Junto  was  one 
of  the  parents  of  our  Society;  for  the  union  took 
place  on  the  2nd  of  January,  1769.  The  Committee, 
however,  do  not  lay  much  stress  upon  this  reasoning; 
as  Franklin,  writing  his  Life  in  England  in  1771, 
may  not  have  been  entirely  accurate  in  dates.  They 
rely  more  upon  the  fact  that  Franklin,  in  speaking 
of  the  duration  of  the  Junto,  never  refers  to  its 
ceasing  to  exist,  in  consequence  of  its  union  with  the 
Philosophical  Society,  a  statement  he  would  hardly 
have  omitted  to  make  in  his  Autobiography,  if  it  had 
been  a  fact. 

Upon  the  whole,  the  Committee  incline  to  the 
opinion  that  the  Franklin- Junto  ceased  to  exist  as 
an  organized  club  of  twelve  about  the  year  1767; 
but  continued  to  meet  irregularly,  without  being  kept 
up  in  number,  for  many  years  afterwards. 


86  REPORT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

The  Committee  now  come  to  consider  the  difficulty 
implied  in  the  supposition  of  the  existence  of  two 
Juntos  meeting  in  this  city  at  the  same  time.  This 
difficulty  is  ably  presented  by  Mr.  Du  Ponceau. 
Speaking  of  the  assumption  of  the  existence  of  two 
juntos,  one  begun  in  1727,  the  other  in  1750,  and  sup- 
posing both  to  have  ended  in  1768,  or  69,  he  says,  in 
his  note  to  Mr.  Kane  :— 

"During  these  18  or  19  years,  there  would  have 
been  two  Societies  in  Philadelphia,  same  name,  same 
objects,  same  rules,  same  exercises,  same  qualifica- 
tions, in  short,  a  fac-simile  of  each  other.  This  ap- 
pears, if  not  impossible,  at  least  quite  improbable. 

"There  would  have  been  at  least  some  difference 
in  the  name,  as  the  New  Junto,  the  Junto  No.  2,  or 
the  like.  Courtesy  would  have  required  it.  Shop 
keepers  do  not  take  each  others  signs.  It  must  have 
been,  if  otherwise,  in  opposition  to  Franklin's  Junto, 
and  an  insult.  It  is  not  -pretended.  It  would  have 
produced  confusion. " 

Two  suppositions  are  admissible  in  explanation  of 
the  existence  of  two  Juntos  without  involving  the 
difficulties  so  forcibly  urged  by  our  President  in  the 
above  extract.  One  is  that  the  Franklin-Junto, 
through  the  suggestion  of  its  members,  caused  the 
second  Junto  to  be  established,  without  revealing  its 
own  existence;  the  other,  that  it  exercised  its  in- 
fluence openly  with  its  young  friends,  to  induce  them 
to  establish  a  Society  on  the  model  of  their  own. 


ON  MR.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTORY.  87 

The  first  supposition  is  rendered  plausible  by  the 
fact,  that  subordinate  Clubs  to  the  Junto  were,  at 
one  time,  secretly  formed  by  different  members  of 
the  original  Club.  This  plan  originated  with  Frank- 
lin, as  a  substitute  for  one  of  increasing  the  number 
of  members  of  the  original  Junto  beyond  twelve,  to 
which  he  was  opposed.  He  says,  "I  was  one  of 
those  who  were  against  any  addition  to  our  numbers ; 
but,  instead  of  it,  made  in  writing  a  proposal,  that 
every  member  separately  should  endeavor  to  form 
a  subordinate  Club,  with  the  same  rules  respecting 
queries,  etc.,  and  without  informing  them  of  the 
connection  with  the  Junto. "  Autobiography,  1, 
Sparks,  129.  Several  of  these  subordinate  Clubs 
were  completed  under  different  names ;  as  the  vine, 
the  union,  the  band.  In  these  Clubs  it  is  true  that 
the  name  "Junto"  is  not  employed;  but  might  not 
the  idea  of  inducing  their  young  friends  to  establish 
a  similar  association  to  the  Junto,  and  under  the  same 
name,  have  been  carried  into  effect  in  1750,  by  the 
influence  of  its  members,  not  known  as  such;  it  being 
a  rule  to  keep  the  Institution  secret?  Under  the 
circumstances  of  the  assumed  secrecy  of  the  original 
Club,  the  members  would  feel  no  objection  to  suggest- 
ing the  same  name  for  its  copy. 

On  the  other  supposition,  which  the  Committee  con- 
sider the  more  probable,  the  original  Club  may  be 
supposed  to  have  relinquished,  about  the  year  1750, 
all  intention  of  keeping  up  their  original  number  of 


88  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

twelve.  To  keep  up  this  number,  it  would  have  been 
necessary,  in  all  probability,  to  elect  much  younger 
men  than  those  that  remained  of  the  original  body. 
Instead,  therefore,  of  bringing  in  younger  men,  they 
may  have  induced  twelve,  in  whom  they  reposed  con- 
fidence, to  form  a  similar  association  and  with  the 
same  name;  for,  if  the  original  Club  looked  forward 
to  its  extinction,  and  kept  its  existence  to  a  certain 
extent  secret,  it  would  rather  desire  than  otherwise 
that  the  new  association  should  take  its  name.  The 
probability  of  the  view  here  presented,  is  strength- 
ened by  the  fact  that  several  of  the  members  of  the 
Society-Junto  were  sons  of  members  of  the  Franklin- 
Junto,  as  William  Franklin,  Philip  Syng,  Jr.,  and 
George  Eoberts. 

Thus  it  is  perceived  that,  adopting  either  of  the 
suppositions  suggested,  the  two  associations  would 
have  had  the  same  name  and  organization,  and  the 
simultaneous  existence  of  a  second  Junto  would  have 
indicated  neither  opposition  nor  insult  to  the  Frank- 
lin-Junto. 

Towards  the  close  of  his  paper,  Mr.  Du  Ponceau 
speaks  of  the,  two  parties,  aristocratic  and  popular, 
into  which  the  inhabitants  of  Pennsylvania  were 
divided  in  1768,  and  for  some  years  previously,  and 
correctly  remarks  that  the  artistocratic  .party  made 
up  the  principal  part  of  the  Philosophical  Society; 
while  the  American  Society  was  composed  of  members 
from  the  popular  party.  Setting  out  from  this  gen- 


ON  MR.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTORY.  89 

eral  proposition,  the  author  infers  the  existence  of 
a  strong  feeling  of  opposition  between  the  two  So- 
cieties. Thus,  in  one  place  he  says,  "I  shall  follow 
the  two  Societies  in  their  mutual  jealousies."  p.  14. 
In  another  place  he  says,  "In  1768,  when  the  dif- 
ferences were  at  their  height  between  the  two  So- 
cieties, we  find  him  (Hugh  Eoberts)  enlisted  with 
that  opposed  to  the  old  Junto. "  Again,  he  remarks, 
"In  this  state  of  things,  the  high  aristocratic  party 
could  not  see  with  unconcern,  that  an  obscure  Club, 
which,  till  then,  had  been  unknown,  should  assume 
to  form  themselves  into  a  learned  Society,  like  those 
which  in  Europe  bore  royal  titles, ' '  etc.  p.  33. 

Further  on  in  his  paper  he  says  "The  two  parties 
seemed  to  lie  on  their  oars,  watching  each  other's 
motions.  It  was  not  until  the  year  1768,  that  the 
contest  truly  began  and  assumed  a  formidable  as- 
pect." pp.  33-34. 

The  Committee  would  here  stop  to  inquire,  are  the 
expressions  contained  in  the  above  extracts  histor- 
ically just? 

The  Committee  are  prepared  to  admit  that  a 
jealously  existed  between  the  two  Societies,  and  that 
warmth  and  activity  were  displayed  by  the  members 
of  the  respective  bodies  at  the  first  election  after 
the  union,  in  order  to  secure  the  choice  of  their  own 
President;  but  further  than  this  they  are  not  willing 
to  go.  They  have  carefully  examined  the  minutes 
of  the  two  Societies  before  the  Union,  and  find,  in 


90  KEPORT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

the  manner  in  which  the  negotiation  was  conducted, 
the  evidence  of  calmness,  mutual  respect,  and  the 
desire  to  avoid  giving  offense.  It  is,  indeed,  true 
that  the  American  Society  declined  an  election  of  its 
members,  "en  masse, "  into  the  Philosophical  Society. 
At  their  meeting  of  the  5th  of  February,  1768,  the 
American  Society  voted  unanimously  that  the  terms 
of  union  implied  by  the  election  of  their  members 
into  the  Philosophical  Society  by  a  general  vote,  were 
not  equally  honorable  to  both  parties.  Immediately 
after  passing  this  vote,  the  following  proposition 
was  unanimously  carried  in  the  affirmative: — 

"As  the  Gentlemen  of  the  American  Philosophical 
Society  have  conducted  themselves  politely  towards 
this  Society;  is  it  not  proper  to  draw  up  an  answer 
to  their  proceedings,  and  deliver  it  to  the  Gentlemen 
of  said  Society  1" 

At  the  next  meeting,  the  Committee  appointed  for 
the  purpose,  submitted  their  draught  of  an  answer 
to  the  Philosophical  Society.  It  is  too  long  to  be 
inserted  here,  but  the  Committee  will  transcribe  the 
first  paragraph,  which  is  in  these  words:— 

"That  although  the  readiness  of  the  American 
Philosophical  Society  to  dispense  with  their  law  in 
order  to  ballot  us  into  their  Society,  together  with 
their  respectful  conduct  on  that  occasion,  might  be 
deemed  an  honour  to  us  as  individuals;  yet,  as  a 
Society,  we  cannot  consider  it  in  that  light  for  the 
following  reasons/' 


91 

The  answer,  from  which  the  above  is  an  extract, 
was  never  delivered;  for  the  very  next  day  the 
American  Society  held  a  special  meeting,  which  opens 
with  the  following  minute:— 

4 'Some  of  the  members  apprehending  that  the 
minute  of  our  last  meeting,  if  delivered,  might  give 
offence  to  some  Gentlemen  of  the  other  Society,  which 
they  would  cautiously  avoid  if  possible,  therefore 
proposed  a  meeting  of  the  Society  this  day  to  con- 
sider that  minute, "  etc.  The  result  of  the  recon- 
sideration is  thus  recorded: — 

"The  minute  of  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety of  the  2nd  inst.,  which  declares  our  election  into 
that  Society,  being  considered,  it  was  unanimously 
determined  that,  as  it  was  not  on  the  terms  proposed, 
we  are  under  the  necessity  of  declining  the  Union." 

In  the  above  calm  and  deliberate  proceedings,  the 
Committee  can  see  nothing  that  has  the  appearance 
of  a  "contest,"  much  less  of  a  contest  presenting  "a 
formidable  aspect." 

We  have  the  evidence  of  Bishop  White  that  warmth 
and  activity  were  displayed  at  the  first  election.  The 
minutes  show  that  89  members  voted.  The  total 
number  of  members  at  the  time  of  the  union  was  251, 
— 26  common  to  the  two  parent  Societies ;  102  belong- 
ing to  the  Philosophical  Society,  and  123  to  the 
American  Society.  Deducting  the  members  that  re- 
sided out  of  the  city  and  county,  many  of  them  in 
distant  states  and  countries,  there  remain  about  14 


92  EEPOET    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

belonging  to  the  two  Societies,  69  to  the  Philosophical, 
and  41  to  the  American  Society;  total  124.  As  89 
voted,  it  shows  how  large  a  proportion  of  those,  pre- 
sumed to  be  present  in  the  city  and  county,  were 
active  on  the  occasion.  The  resident  members  of 
the  Philosophical  Society  were  more  numerous  than 
the  same  members  of  the  American  Society;  though 
the  total  number  of  the  former  Society,  from  having 
fewer  non-resident  members,  was  less  than  the  total 
of  the  latter.  From  these  facts  it  is  evident  that 
Franklin  could  not  have  been  elected  first  President 
of  the  United  Society,  unless  he  had  received  consid- 
erable support  from  the  members  of  the  Philosophical 
Society.  If  the  election  had  turned  upon  party  or 
Society  feeling  solely,  Ex-Governor  Hamilton,  the 
President  of  the  Philosophical  Society,  would  have 
been  elected.  No  doubt  the  fact  was,  that  it  was 
felt  and  admitted  that  Franklin  possessed  a  high 
philosophical  reputation,  that  he  was  the  founder  of 
the  Philosophical  Society,  though  the  President  of  the 
American  Society,  and  that  his  name,  which  was 
known  all  over  Europe,  would  give  greater  weight 
to  the  United  Society  than  that  of  Hamilton.  Actu- 
ated, no  doubt,  by  some  such  motives,  a  sufficient 
number  of  the  members  of  the  Philosophical  Society 
voted  in  favor  of  Franklin  to  secure  his  election. 

It  is  true  that  John  Penn,  at  the  time  Governor  of 
the  Province,  was  displeased  at  the  result.  It  had 
been  agreed,  that  the  Governor  for  the  time  being, 


93 

should  be  the  patron  of  the  United  Society,  as  he  had 
been  of  the  Philosophical  Society  before  the  union; 
and  the  Vice-Presidents,  at  the  first  meeting,  were 
appointed  a  Committee  to  request  him  to  be  patron  of 
the  Society.  At  the  next  meeting,  the  Vice-President 
reported  that  the  Governor  had  declined  the  office. 

Mr.  Du  Ponceau,  in  his  paper,  has  given  the  fol- 
lowing anecdote,  connected  with  the  conduct  of  the 
Governor  on  this  occasion,  on  the  authority  of  Bishop 
White.  When  the  Governor  was  waited  upon,  to 
request  his  acceptance  of  the  title  of  patron,  he  re- 
plied, "I  never  shall  be  the  patron  of  a  Society  that 
has  for  its  President  such  a  -  —  as  Franklin. "  It 
is  understood  that  the  blank  represents  an  oppro- 
brious epithet,  which  was  supplied  in  the  reading  of 
the  paper  before  the  Society.  The  same  anecdote 
was  related  to  the  Chairman  of  this  Committee  on 
two  occasions  by  Bishop  White,  and  without  any 
variation  that  he  recollects.  According  to  the  version 
of  the  anecdote,  as  given  to  the  Chairman,  the  reply 
of  the  Governor  was  "No,  Gentlemen,  I  cannot  con- 
sent to  be  the  patron  of  a  Society,  whose  first  Presi- 
dent is  the  greatest  enemy  of  my  family."  As  this 
anecdote  was  related  in  two  different  ways  by  Bishop 
White,  both  of  which  cannot  be  accurate,  every  one 
must  be  left  to  his  own  judgment,  as  to  which  version 
is  most  probably  correct.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Governor  felt  vexed  at  the  election  of 
Franklin;  but  the  Committee  do  not  think  it  probable 


94  KEPOET    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

that  he  used  the  harsh  term  attributed  to  him.  His 
successor,  Eichard  Penn,  showed  both  better  manners 
and  better  sense  than  to  refuse  the  same  honour; 
for,  on  the  22nd  of  January  1773,  he  attended,  as 
patron,  the  oration  of  the  Eev.  Dr.  Smith  before  the 
United  Society,  still  under  the  Presidentship  of 
Franklin.  See  Chronological  Statement,  Marked  C, 
under  this  date. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  members  of  the 
Philosophical  Society  did  not  generally  partake  of 
the  hostile  feelings  of  the  Governor  towards  Frank- 
lin. This  may  be  inferred  from  the  character  of 
the  second  meeting  of  the  United  Society,  at  which 
40  members  were  present, — 5  common  to  the  two 
parent  Societies,  16  belonging  to  the  Philosophical 
and  19  to  the  American  Society.  So  large  a  number 
as  16  members  of  the  Philosophical  Society  would 
hardly  have  been  present  at  the  first  meeting  after 
th  election  of  Franklin,  if  deep  dissatisfaction  had 
been  felt  at  the  result. 

The  Committee  now  pass  from  the  analysis  of  Mr. 
Du  Ponceau's  paper  to  a  brief  consideration  of  that 
of  Mr.  Fisher.  The  unsettled  points  relating  to  the 
early  history  of  our  Society,  have  been  so  fully  dis- 
cussed in  what  precedes,  that  little  remains  to  be  said 
in  relation  to  the  latter  paper. 

Mr.  Fisher  is,  perhaps,  not  quite  correct  in  saying 
that  the  Franklin- Junto  "had  no  written  communi- 
cations, and  possessed  no  library";  for  Franklin  says 


ON  ME.  DU  PONCEAU'S  HISTOKY.  95 

that  he  published  pieces  in  his  newspaper,  which  he 
had  read  before  the  Junto;  and  that  we  had  written 
papers  for  the  Junto  on  the  irregularities  of  the 
Watch,  and  on  Fires.  1,  Sparks,  123,  and  132-33. 
He  also  speaks  of  the  members  having,  at  his  sug- 
gestion, clubbed  their  books  in  a  common  Library, 
though  afterwards  they  were  separated.  1,  Sparks, 
96.  See  also  Chronological  Statement. 

The  suggestion  thrown  out  by  Mr.  Fisher,  that 
Philip  Syng  of  the  Society-Junto,  was  a  son  of  Philip 
Syng  of  the  Franklin  Junto,  is  perfectly  correct. 
He  died  in  November,  1760,  and  his  death  is  referred 
to,  incidentally,  in  the  minutes  of  the  Society-Junto, 
about  July  1761.  See  Minutes,  part  1,  p.  81. 

Mr.  Fisher  is  in  error  in  stating  that  it  was  by  the 
Philosophical  Society  "that  the  proposal  was  first 
made  for  an  incorporation  with  the  American  So- 
ciety." The  first  proposition  came  from  the  Amer- 
ican Society,  in  the  shape  of  a  motion,  passed  unani- 
mously on  the  26th  of  January  1768,  that  a  union 
with  the  Philosophical  Society,  on  an  equal  footing, 
and  on  terms  equally  honorable  to  both  was  desirable, 
and  would  conduce  to  the  public  good.  The  next 
day,  Dr.  Morgan  communicated  this  motion  to  Dr. 
Bond  of  the  Philosophical  Society;  and  the  action 
taken  by  the  latter  Society  upon  it  was  to  elect,  by 
a  general  vote  on  the  2nd  February  following,  the 
whole  of  the  members  of  the  American  Society  into 
their  body. 


96  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

In  noticing  the  above  inaccuracy,  it  is  due  to  Mr. 
Fisher  to  state  that  he  drew  up  his  paper  partly 
from  recollection;  for  in  a  note,  appended  to  his 
Communication,  he  says,  "In  the  preceding  sketch 
there  may  be  several  trifling  errors,  as  I  have  de- 
pended on  Mr.  Sparks'  Account  of  the  Society  and 
my  own  recollections. ' ' 

The  chief  value  of  Mr.  Fisher's  Communication  is 
given  to  it  by  the  letter  of  Charles  Thomson  to 
Franklin,  which  he  was  so  fortunate  as  to  obtain 
through  William  B.  Eeed,  Esq.  This  letter  sheds 
much  light  on  the  unsettled  points  of  the  early  his- 
tory of  our  Society,  and  fixes  the  date  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Society-Junto,  as  has  been  already 
mentioned. 

The  Committee  are  of  opinion  that  the  account 
given  by  Mr.  Sparks  of  the  origin  of  our  Society,  in 
the  first  volume  of  his  Life  of  Franklin,  p.  576,  is 
substantially  correct.  There  is,  however,  an  unim- 
portant error  in  the  Statement,  that,  when  the  two 
Societies  agreed  to  unite  on  equal  terms,  as  they 
did  after  a  renewal  of  the  negotiation  of  union  in 
November  1768,"  each,  elected  "all  the  members  of 
the  other."  p.  578.  No  such  mutual  election  ever 
took  place. 

An  inconsistent  and  inaccurate  statement  is  made 
in  Mr.  Sparks'  second  volume,  p.  9,  published  four 
years  earlier  than  the  first  volume,  in  which  the 
Editor  says,  "Forty  years  after  its  establishment," 


97 

the  Junto  "became  the  basis  of  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Society. " 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  that  they  have  been  able  to 
collect,  the  Committee  have  come  to  the  following 
conclusions : — 

1.  That  the  present  Society  was  formed,  on  the  2nd 
of  January   1769,   by  the   union  of  the   "American 
Philosophical  Society "  and  the  "American  Society, 
held  at  Philadelphia  for  promoting  Useful  Knowl- 
edge. ' ' 

2.  That  the  Philosophical  Society  was  founded  by 
Franklin  on  the  14th  of  May  1743   [old  style  corre- 
sponding to  25th  of  May  new  style],  this  being  the 
date  of  the  publication  of  his  "Proposal  for  promot- 
ing Useful  knowledge  among  the  British  Plantations 
in  America. " 

3.  That  the  American  Society  was  begun  under  the 
name  of  the  Junto,  and  bore  this  name  from  the  year 
1750,  the  earliest  recorded  date  of  its  existence,  until 
the  13th  of  December  1766. 

4.  That  the   evidence  before  the   Committee   does 
not   establish  the  identity  of  the  Junto  which  was 
formed  by  Franklin  in  1727,  with  that  which  after- 
wards  became   the   American   Society;   though   they 
appear    to    have    been    the    same    in    many   marked 
particulars. 

5.  That  dating  from  the  establishment  of  the  elder 
parent-Society,  our  centennial  anniversary  should  be 
celebrated  on  the  14th  [25th,  new  style]  of  May  1843. 


98  KEPOKT    OF    THE    COMMITTEE 

6.  That  Franklin,  having  established  one  of  our 
parent-Societies,  and  furnished,  in  his  Junto,  the 
model  of  the  other,  is  justly  entitled  to  be  called  our 
founder. 

In  conclusion,  the  Committee  congratulate  the  So- 
ciety on  the  important  accession  to  the  knowledge 
of  our  early  history,  which  has  resulted  from  the 
labours  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  and  Mr.  Fisher.  Yet 
it  must  be  admitted  that  chasms  still  remain  in  our 
early  annals  which  require  to  be  filled  up,  that  doubts 
exist  on  some  points,  and  discrepancies  of  opinion 
on  others.  The  question  here  arises,  shall  we  give 
publicity  to  the  Society's  early  history  in  its  present 
imperfect  state;  or  shall  we  delay,  in  the  hope  of 
obtaining  more  facts!  The  Committee  expresses 
themselves  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  latter  course. 
They,  therefore,  recommend  to  the  Society,  the  adop- 
tion of  the  following  resolution:— 

Eesolved,  that  the  papers  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  and 
Mr.  Fisher,  which  were  read  on  the  26th  of  June 
1840,  together  with  the  supplementary  communica- 
tions, be  deposited  in  the  Archives,  as  valuable  con- 
tributions to  the  early  history  of  the  Society. 

FKANKLIN  BACHE, 
J.  K.  KANE, 
A.  D.  BACHE, 

October  15,  1841.  EOBLEY  DUNGLISON. 


APPENDIX  A. 

A  tabular  statement  of  the  attendance  of  members 
at  the  meetings  from  1758  to  1768  which  it  is  not  con- 
sidered necessary  to  reproduce. 

APPENDIX   B. 

ABSTKACT  FROM  THE  JUNTO  MINUTE  BOOK. 

[Entries  relating  to  purely  scientific  and  philosophical 

discussions  have  been  omitted  in.  this  transcription] 

1758.  September  29.  Absent,  W.  Franklin  in  Eng- 
land. 

October  27th.  The  members  evidently  become  Chair- 
men and  Secretaries  in  rotation. 

November  3rd.  Fines  due  from  the  13th  of  Feb.  to 
the  25th  of  August  1758  inclusive.  Therefore  the 
Club  existed  on  the  13th  of  Feb.  1758. 

November  10.  "W.  Franklin  out  of  town." 

December  1st.  "The  company  resolved  that  as 
Peter  Chevalier  had  been  absent  four  nights  succes- 
sively, without  sending  an  apology,  that  he  is  no 
longer  to  be  deemed  a  member." 

Dec.  22nd.  "Wm.  Franklin  abroad." 

Dec.  29th.  Paul  Jackson  present  as  a  member;  but 
not  previously  mentioned  either  as  present  or  absent. 

1759.  Jan.  5.    C.   Thomson  proposed  "Will  it  be 
most  advantageous  to  the  company  to  continue   or 
discontinue  keeping  a  minute  book  I" 

19th.  Agreed  to  keep  a  minute  book.     It  was  ap- 

99 


100  APPENDIX   B. 

preliended  that,  if  no  minutes  were  kept,  "  fewer 
queries  would  be  discussed  than  otherwise  would  be, 
and  the  Junto  consequently  less  improved. " 

Turn  as  Secretary  came  round  not  much  sooner 
than  a  year. 

Feb.  2.  "If  this  want  of  zeal,  this  disinclination  to 
industry  and  due  attendance  should  continue,  is  it 
not  evident  that  a  dissolution  of  the  Society  must 
speedily  follow!"  "As  our  anniversary  will  be  held 
next  Monday,  when  it  is  customary  for  us  to  express 
our  good  wishes  for  the  Society's  prosperity "  etc. 
the  company  proposing  to  celebrate  their  anniver- 
sary,-the  Secretary  is  appointed  to  bespeak  an  enter- 
tainment suitable  to  the  occasion. 

Feb.  5.  (Monday)  Minutes  at  the  Widow  Gray's. 
"Wm.  Franklin  at  sea." 

"This  night,  agreeable  to  a  fundamental  law  of 
this  Society,  the  original  laws  were  distinctly  read, 
and  also  the  bye-laws." 

February  23rd.  Edward  Duffield  ballotted  for  and 
approved.  "Edmd.  Physick  and  Wm.  Hopkins  are 
appointed  to  speak  to  him. ' ' 

Sep.  27th.  "As  several  of  the  original  laws  have 
been  abrogated  or  changed,  and  several  Bye-Laws 
made  now  are  in  force,  and  which  lie  scattered  upon 
and  down  in  the  book,  E.  Physick  and  Charles 
Thomson,  the  Committee  before  appointed,  are  de- 
sired to  make  a  collection  of  such  laws"  etc. 

1760.  February  1st.  Next  Tuesday  being  our  anni- 


ABSTKACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          101 

versary  meeting,  the  Secretary  was  desired  to  be- 
speak a  supper  for  the  company  of  the  Widow  Gray. 

June  20th.  Sam.  Powel  introduced  as  a  member 
and  paid  20  shillings. 

1761.  Feb.  6th.  "As  there  had  not  been  proper 
notice  given  by  the  Secretary  for  the  members  to 
meet  the  5th  inst.,  the  usual  time  of  their  anniver- 
sary, they  agreed  to  spend  a  meeting  together,  in 
memory  thereof,  and  desired  Charles  Thomson  to  be- 
speak a  supper  at  Whitebread's." 

Feb.  9th.  "The  following  members  met  at  W. 
Whitebread's;  viz.,  Charles  Thomson,  E.  Physick,  I. 
Paschall,  F.  Kawle,  W.  Hopkins,  and  Joshua  Howell, 
together  with  Geo.  Bryan  (a  former  member),  who 
was  invited  by  one  of  the  company/' 

July  30th.  "By  the  death  of  two  members,  P.  Syng 
and  F.  Rawle,  the  absence  of  some  who  are  abroad  in 
England,  and  the  sickness  and  necessary  avocations  of 
the  few  remaining,  this  Society  has  for  some  time,  lan- 
guished. The  meetings  were  usually  kept  up.  But 
so  few  attended  and  so  little  was  done,  that  no 
minutes  were  made,  and  some  thoughts  were  let  in 
of  giving  up  the  room,  and  dissolving  the  Society.  But 
as  the  Institution  was,  after  long  experience,  found  to 
be  good,  and  much  improvement  as  well  as  pleasure 
reaped  from  it;  it  was  agreed  first  to  try  whether 
any  measures  could  be  fallen  upon  to  revive  its 
ancient  spirit.  The  best  way  they  judged  to  effect 
this,  was  turning  back  to  the  first  principles,  and 


102  APPENDIX   B. 

keeping  close  to  the  plan  originally  laid  down.  In 
order  to  do  this  'twas  necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
the  original  laws.  The  laws  were  lost  or  mislaid,  so 
that  they  could  not  be  found.  After  several  searches 
to  no  purpose,  it  was  at  length  agreed  to  appoint  a 
Committee  to  recollect  and  draw  up  a  set  of  Eules, 
as  agreeable  as  possible  to  the  ancient  Eules  -and 
Bye-Laws,  heretofore  established,  and  now  in  force. 
Edmund  Physick  and  Charles  Thomson  were  nomi- 
nated for  this  work,  who,  having  drawn  up  the  Eules, 
submitted  them  to  the  examination  of  the  company  on 
the  30th  of  July.  As  in  some  respects  they  seemed 
to  differ  from  the  ancient  rules,  a  question  arose 
whether  the  Company  present  had  a  right  to  enact 
these  into  Laws,  or  whether,  if  enacted,  they 
could  bind  the  whole  Society.  This  led  them  into 
a  consideration  of  the  state  of  the  Society. 
William  Franklin  and  Samuel  Powel  are  both  in 
England,  who,  having  at  their  departure  and  tak- 
ing leave,  desired  to  be  continued  as  members,  and 
promised  an  epistolary  correspondence,  ought,  there- 
fore, to  be  deemed  such.  But  Paul  Jackson,  Stephen 
Wooley,  and  Joseph  Mather,  who  are  settled  each  in 
his  profession,  the  first  at  a  distance  from  this  town, 
the  two  latter  in  other  Provinces,  could  by  no  means 
have  any  right  to  interfere  in  making  laws  for  the 
government  and  regulation  of  this  Society,  more  espe- 
cially as  they  contributed  nothing  towards  the  stand- 
ing charges  of  the  Society,  nor  even  attended  when 


ABSTRACT    FROM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          103 

they  chanced  to  be  in  town  on  the  night  of  meeting. 
At  most  they  were  only  to  be  considered  as  honorary 
members,  who,  upon  removing  to  town,  signing  and 
conforming  to  the  Rules  of  the  Society  then  in 
force,  should,  without  any  ballot  or  new  change,  be 
admitted  as  members.  So  that  the  whole  is  reduced 
to  Edmund  Physick,  Charles  Thomson,  Isaac  Pa- 
schall,  Joshua  Howell,  and  William  Hopkins  (if  he 
chooses  to  attend),  and  the  two  in  England,  whose 
return,  being  uncertain,  ought  not  to  interrupt  the 
measures  necessary  to  be  taken  for  preserving  the 
Society  in  being.  This  difficulty  being  thus  got  over, 
and  the  members  present  well  satisfyed  of  their  power, 
the  Laws  were  read  over,  and  after  some  alterations 
to  make  them  more  conformable  to  the  original  Eules 
and  Bye-Laws,  they  were  ordered  to  be  entered  in 
the  book,  and  are  as  follow: — ' 

[Here  follow  the  Eules  with  this  heading.] 

"Rules  of  a  Society  meeting  weekly  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  for  their  Mutual  Improvement  in  Use- 
ful Knowledge." 

"1.  That  this  Society,  called  The  Junto,  meet  every 
Friday  evening  "  etc. 

6.  The  elections  must  be  unanimous.  The  new  mem- 
ber introduced  and  qualified  thus: — 

"Standing  up  and  laying  his  right  hand  upon  his 
breast,  he  shall  be  asked  the  following  questions : — 

"1.  Have  you  any  objection  or  any  personal  dislike 
to  any  member  of  this  Society? 


104  APPENDIX  B. 

"2.  Do  you  love  mankind  in  general,  of  what 
nation,  religion,  or  profession  soever  they  be? 

"3.  Do  you  think  any  one  ought  to  be  injured  in 
his  estate,  character,  or  person  for  his  mere  specula- 
tive opinions  in  matters  of  religion? 

"4.  Do  you  love  truth  for  truth's  sake,  and  will 
you  endeavor  impartially  to  find  it  out  and  freely 
communicate  it  to  others? " 

These  questions  being  properly  answered,  and  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  company,  the  Eules  shall  be 
distinctly  read  by  the  Secretary,  and  subscribed  by 
the  person  to  be  admitted,  who  shall  thereupon  be 
acknowledged  a  member,  etc.  etc. 

Aug.  7.  A  meeting.  Only  those  present,  Edmund 
Physick,  Isaac  Paschall,  and  Charles  Thomson,  who 
signed  the  rules  above  referred  to. 

Aug.  14.  Wm.  Hopkins  signs  the  laws. 

Aug.  28th.  John  Cooper,  elected  the  14th,  declines 
membership,  because  he  belongs  to  a  religious  society 
which  disapproves  of  Clubs,  and  because  a  pain  in  his 
head  renders  him  incapable  of  close  application. 

Sep.   4th.   Joshua   Howell    signed   the   laws. 

Oct.  2nd.  Charles  Moore  was  ballotted  for  ^this 
evening,  and  approved. 

Oct.  16,  1761  to  Sept.  3,  1762,  no  minutes  known  to 
exist,  and  no  meetings  probably  took  place.  See 
below,  remarks  in  relation  to  Charles  Moore. 

1762.  Sep.  3.  The  members  of  the  Junto,  desirous 
of  continuing  the  Society,  met  this  evening,  having 


ABSTRACT    FROM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE   BOOK.         105 

again  agreed  with  Mr.  Camthers  for  the  room  on  the 
same  terms  on  which  we  had  it  formerly,  etc.  etc. 

Mr.  George  Boberts,  having  been  formerly  ap- 
proved was  now  introduced  and  qualified  as  a  mem- 
ber. [Signed  the  Laws,  being  the  sixth  name.  See 
book.] 

Sep.  10th.  "As  Charles  Moore  was  formerly  bal- 
lotted  for  and  approved  [see  date,  Oct.  2,  1761]  and 
E.  Physick,  who  was  appointed  to  speak  to  him  in- 
forms that  the  only  reason  for  not  introducing  him 
was  that  Mr.  Moore  was  about  taking  a  journey  to 
Maryland,  soon  after  which  the  Society  was  discon- 
tinued. Now  we  are  met  again,  and  he  is  returned, 
E.  Physick  is  desired  to  speak  to  him,  and,  if  he  is 
willing  to  become  a  member,  to  introduce  him  next 
evening. ' ' 

Sep.  22nd.  Three  members  present.  "Conversa- 
tion general.7' 

From  Oct.  22,  1762,  to  April  25,  1766,  no  minutes 
known  to  exist;  but  meetings  probably  took  place,  as 
members  were  evidently  elected  in  the  interval,  whose 
names  first  appear  on  the  minutes  of  April  25,  1766. 

1766.  May  23rd.  "Owen  Biddle  and  Isaac  Paschall, 
who  had  been  appointed  by  the  company  to  revise 
their  Laws,  and  to  make  a  few  alterations  in  them, 
informed  the  members  this  evening  that  they  were 
finished,  and  desired  the  liberty  of  reading  them, 
which,  being  agreed  to,  they  were  accordingly  read, 
and  received  the  approbation  of  those  persons  who 


106  APPENDIX   B. 

were  present;  but  as  the  Company  was  not  full,  it 
was  agreed  they  should  be  reconsidered  the  next 
evening." 

30th.  "  The  articles  being  read  again  this  evening, 
the  Company  made  some  further  alterations  and  then 
ordered  them  to  be  fairly  copied  in  the  book." 

These  articles  immediately  precede  the  Minutes  of 
April  25,  1766.  They  have  the  same  heading  as  the 
Rules  mentioned  at  p.  102  of  this  Abstract: — viz, 
"Rules  of  a  Society  meeting  weekly  in  the  City  of 
Philadelphia  for  their  mutual  improvement  in  Use- 
ful Knowledge."  Comparing  the  two  draughts,  there 
are  to  be  found  certain  transpositions  and  verbal 
alterations.  Besides  these,  the  following  changes 
appear  in  the  new  draught. 

1.  In  the  first  article  the  name  is  changed  from 
"  The  Junto  "  to  "  The  American  Society  for  pro- 
moting and  propagating  Useful  Knowledge,  held  in 
Philadelphia."     This  change,  however,  was  not  made 
until  the  13th  of  December  following,  which  date  see 
further  on,  p.  111. 

2.  The  second  article  is  the  same  in  both  draughts, 
viz,  "That  no  person  be  admitted  into  the  Society 
occasionally. ' ' 

3.  The  third  article  of  the  new  draught  provides 
for  each  member  serving  as  Chairman  and  Secretary 
for  four  weeks  in  alphabetical  rotation,  being  part 
of  the  third,  and  the  whole  of  the  fourth  article  of  the 
old  draught. 


ABSTKACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          107 

4.  The    fourth    article    defines    the    duties    of    the 
Chairman  and  Secretary,  being  the  remainder  of  the 
third    article    of   the    old    draught.     The    Secretary, 
among  other  duties,  is  to  provide  necessary  refresh- 
ments. .  The  only  new  provision  appears  to  be  that 
the  Secretary  shall  record  "all  new  discoveries  or 
improvements  in  Arts  and  Sciences,  made  by  or  com- 
municated to  the  Company. " 

5.  The  fifth  article  provides  for  a  treasurer,  to  be 
elected  twice  a  year.     Same  as  the  fifth  article  of  the 
old  draught. 

6.  This  article  provides  for  unanimity  in  the  elec- 
tion of  members,  and  for  the  same  qualifications  of 
members  elect  as  is  Art.  6  of  the  old  draught.     The 
four  questions  propounded  are  verbatim  the  same  as 
in  the  old  draught.    See  p.  102  of  this  Abstract.    The 
new  article  omits  the  provision  of  a  payment  by  a 
new  member  of  20  shillings,  which  is  contained  in  the 
old. 

7.  This    article    relates    to    members    presenting 
queries  for  discussion,  and  is  essentially  the  same  as 
the  first  paragraph  of  the  old  article. 

8.  This  article  relates  to  members  presenting  com- 
positions  to   improve   their   "style   and   manner    of 
writing."     It  is  essentially  the  same  as  the  second 
paragraph  of  the  old  article. 

9.  This  article  relates  to  the  mode  of  conducting 
discussions.     It  is  not  materially  altered  from  Art. 
8  of  the  old  draught. 


108  APPENDIX   B. 

10.  This  article  relates  to  the  preservation  of  cour- 
tesy and  temper  in  debates,  and  is  the  same  as  Art. 
9  old  Eules,  except  that  expulsion  is  provided  for, 
in  case  a  member  persists  in  rudeness,  after  repri- 
mand by  the  chair. 

11.  This    article    for    the    mode    of    appropriating 
money.     It  is  the  same  as  Art.  10  of  the  old  Eules. 

12.  This  article  relates  to  fines  for  absence,  late- 
ness, omission  to  furnish  queries  in  turn,  neglects  of 
duty  by  the  Secretary,  etc.  and  is  nearly  the  same 
as  Art.  11  of  the  old  Eules. 

13.  This  article  provides  for  the  exclusion  of  mem- 
bers,   who    absent    themselves    for    three    successive 
nights,  being  in  health  and  in  town,  and  who  do  not 
make  sufficient  apology.    It  is  the  same  as  Art.  12  of 
the  old  Eules. 

14.  This  article  forbids,  under  the  penalty  of  repri- 
mand or  expulsion,  the  revealing  of  the  secrets  of  the 
Society.    It  is  the  same  as  Art.  13  of  the  old  Eules. 

15.  This   article   runs   thus:    "  This    Society   shall 
dine  or  sup  together  once  in  every  year,  namely,  on 
the  first  day  of   May,   the  better  to  preserve   that 
friendship   which   is   proposed   by  the   members,   at 
which  time  these  Eules  shall  be  read."    Art.  14  of 
the  old  Eules  is  the  same,  except  that  the  anniversary 
is  fixed  for  the  first  Friday  in  February,  instead  of 
the  first  of  May,  as  above. 

16.  This  article,  which  is  the  last,  relates  to  the 
mode  of  altering  the  Eules  or  Bye-Laws,  and  is  the 
same  as  Art.  15,  or  the  last,  of  the  old  Eules. 


present  in  Philadelphia,  and 


ABSTKACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          109 

By  death,  forfeiture  of  membership,  and  removal 
without  expressing  a  wish  to  continue  members,  the 
Junto  on  the  30th  of  July  1761,  was  reduced  to  seven 
members,  viz. 

Edmund  Physick, 

Isaac   Paschall, 

Charles  Thomson, 

William  Hopkins, 

Joshua   Howell 

William  Franklin,  "1 

,  f  absent  in  England. 

Samuel  Powel. 

The  old  laws  having  been  lost,  Physick  and  Thom- 
son were  appointed  a  Committee  to  draw  them  up 
anew,  ' '  as  agreeable  as  possible  to  the  ancient  Eules. ' ' 
The  new  draught  was  submitted,  adopted,  copied  in 
the  minute  book,  and  signed  by  the  first  five  mem- 
bers mentioned  above  as  being  in  Philajdelphia. 
Subsequently,  namely,  on  the  3rd  of  Sep.  1762,  George 
Eoberts  was  introduced,  qualified  as  a  member,  and 
signed  the  Laws.  This  is  the  sixth  and  last  name 
signed  to  these  laws.  He  was  subsequently  dropped 
from  the  list,  and  then  re-elected,  Feb.  12,  1768. 
Between  Oct.  22,  1762  and  Apr.  25,  1766,  no  minutes 
are  known  to  exist.  At  the  meeting  of  April  25,  1766, 
six  members,  whose  names  occur  for  the  first  time, 
are  noted  as  present:  viz,  Isaac  Bartram,  Moses 
Bartram,  Owen  Biddle,  James  Pearson,  Joseph 
Paschall,  and  Isaac  Zane,  Jun.  These  members  must 
have  been  elected  between  Oct.  22,  1762  and  April  25, 
1766;  and  hence  some,  if  not  regular,  meetings  must 


1  10  APPENDIX   B. 

have  taken  place  in  the  interval.  It -is  true  that  two 
of  the  six,  viz.,  Isaac  Bartram  and  James  Pearson 
had  been  elected  before,  namely  on  the  9th  of  Feb. 
1759 ;  but,  as  they  were  never  introduced  and  as  their 
names  do  not  appear  either  as  present  or  absent  in 
the  minutes  of  any  meeting  up  to  Oct.  22,  1762,  it  is 
probable  that  this  election  was  not  recognized. 

At  the  meeting  of  May  23rd,  1766,  Owen  Biddle  and 
Isaac  Paschall,  previously  appointed  for  the  purpose 
but  not  since  the  25th  of  Apr.  1766,  the  date  of  the 
resumption  of  the  minutes,  submitted  a  revised 
draught  of  the  laws  which,  at  the  next  meeting 
(May  30),  was  adopted  with  a  blank  left  for  the 
name,  and  ordered  to  be  copied  in  the  Book.  The 
copy  of  these  laws  is  to  be  found  just  preceding  the 
minutes  of  April  25,  1766.  They  are  signed  first  by 
Charles  Thomson,  Isaac  Paschall,  and  Edmund  Phy- 
sick, — the  other  three  members,  William  Hopkins, 
Joshua  Howell,  and  George  Eoberts,  who  had  signed 
the  previous  copy  of  the  Laws  being  dropped.  After 
these  three  names  follow  the  six  signatures  of  the 
members,  mentioned  above  as  introduced  between 
Oct.  1762  and  Apr.  1766.  Subsequently  to  this  period, 
the  minutes  indicate  who  were  elected  and  introduced ; 
and  the  book  shows  that  twenty-one  additional  mem- 
bers signed  the  laws,  in  all  thirty  names.  These 
twenty-one  members  were  Nicholas  Wain,  Benjamin 
Davis,  William  Bettle,  Clement  Biddle,  Samuel  Eld- 
ridge,  John  Lukens,  John  Morgan,  Cadwalader 


ABSTKACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          Ill 

Evans,  Thomas  Mifflin,  David  Evans,  Samuel  Powel, 
John  Morris,  Jr.,  George  Eoberts,  Jonathan  Odell, 
James  Alexander,  Richard  Wells,  Oswell  Eve,  Lewis 
Nicola,  William  White,  Thomas  Fisher,  and  John 
Foxcroft. 

We  shall  proceed  to  make  further  extracts  from 
the  minutes. 

1766.  Sep.  12th.  "The  Company  met,  proceeded  to 
consider  the  expediency  of  admitting  more  members 
into  our  Society/' 

19th.  The  following  were  chosen  members,  viz. 
Stephen  Woolley,  William  Bettle,  Samuel  Eldridge, 
Benjamin  Davis,  Merchant,  and  Nicholas  Wain. 

Oct.  3rd.  Benjamin  Davis  and  Nicholas  Wain 
admitted,  and  John  Lukens  and  Clement  Biddle  duly 
chosen. 

Oct.  10th.  "William  Bettle,  Clement  Biddle,  and 
Samuel  Eldridge  were  this  evening  introduced  and 
regularly  qualified  agreeable  to  the  sixth  rule." 

Oct.  17th.  John  Lukens  introduced  and  duly  quali- 
fied. 

Nov.  21st.  Isaac  Zane  excluded,  for  absence  for 
three  successive  nights,  without  sending  a  sufficient 
apology. 

Nov.  28th.  "Isaac  Bartram  proposes  to  take  into 
consideration  whether  the  admitting  of  foreign  mem- 
bers may  not  be  of  advantage,  and  promote  the 
design  of  the  institution,  under  proper  regulations?" 

Dec.  5th.  "  Isaac  Bartram 's  scheme  of  admitting 


112  APPENDIX   B. 

foreign  members  was  unanimously  approved  by  the 
Company,  and  Owen  Biddle,  was  appointed  with  him, 
to  draw  up  a  set  of  rules  for  the  admittance  and 
government  of  such  members. " 

John  Morgan,  M.D.,  chosen.  Employed  the  re- 
mainder of  the  evening  in  inquiring  for  a  proper 
name  for  this  Society. 

Dec.  13th.  Rules  for  admitting  corresponding  mem- 
bers passed.  These  rules  are  curious.  See  Junto 
Minute  book,  Part  2,  p.  29.  Also  the  name  of  the 
Society  was  unanimously  adopted  as  follows:  "The 
American  Society  for  promoting  and  propagating 
Useful  Knowledge,  held  in  Philadelphia. ' '  This  is 
the  same  name  that  is  inserted  in  a  different  hand- 
writing in  the  copy  of  the  Eules  which  were  adopted 
May  30,  1766,  and  for  the  insertion  of  which  a  blank 
had  evidently  been  left.  This  shows  that  when  these 
Eules  were  adopted,  the  name  Junto  was  under 
advisement  for  change,  and  was  not  replaced  by  an- 
other until  this  date.  Curious  experiments,  demon- 
strating the  attraction  between  iron  and  mercury,  oil 
and  water,  spirit  and  vinegar,  entered  on  the  minutes 
of  this  meeting.  The  name  of  the  author  is  erased, 
but  appears  to  be  Owen  Biddle,  as  well  as  it  can  be 
made  out. 

Dec.  19th.  John  Morgan,  M.D.,  introduced  and 
qualified. 

1767.  March  20th.  E.  Kinnersley  elected. 

March   27th.     William    Henry,    William    Johnson, 


ABSTEACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          113 

David  Rittenhouse,  Mr.  Mason,  and  Dr.  Samuel  Bard, 
elected  Corres.  members.  Charles  Thomson  chosen 
corresponding  secretary. 

May  1.  This  being  the  anniversary  of  the  Society, 
the  members  dined  on  the  banks  of  the  Schuylkill. 

Aug.  28.  Among  others  James  Pearson  and  Isaac 
Paschall  noted  as  absent,  with  this  note  opposite  to 
their  names  "Excused  their  fines,  on  account  of 
[their  intention  of  declaring]  their  intention  'of  mar- 
riage at  meeting  this  day." 

Sep.  18th.  Charles  Thomson  read  a  sketch  of  a 
general  plan  of  business  for  the  company.  A  sum- 
mary of  the  plan  is  given  and  is  interesting. 

See  Part  2,  p.  56.  Owen  Biddle  proposed  to  prolong 
the  time  limited  for  the  exclusion  of  members  for 
non-attendance.  See  Art.  13th  of  Rules. 

Nov.  27th.  This  evening  spent  in  conversation  on 
the  present  interesting  state  of  the  Colonies,  and  on 
some  proposals  for  augmenting  the  Company. 

Dec.  17.  "At  this  meeting  a  .plan  was  proposed  to 
enlarge  the  Society. " 

1768.  Jan.  1.  "This  evening  the  subject  of  enlarging 
the  Society  was  again  resumed, "  and  Charles  Thom- 
son read  his  "Proposals  for  enlarging  this  Society, 
in  order  that  it  may  the  better  answer  the  end  for 
which  it  was  instituted,  namely,  the  promoting  and 
propagating  useful  knowledge."  Here  follows  this 
paper,  comprising  about  nine  pages  of  the  Minute 
book.  See  p.  61  et  seq.  The  "proposal"  was  ap- 


114  APPENDIX   B. 

proved,  and  "C.  Thomson  was  desired  to  draw  up 
some  Eules  for  enlarging  the  Society,  and  carrying 
the  Plan  into  execution. " 

Jan.  19th.  Doctor  Adam  Kuhn,  John  Dickinson, 
George  Bryan,  Dr.  Cadwalader  Evans,  Thomas 
Pryor,  David  Evans,  and  Thomas  Mifflin  elected. 
An  invitation  sent  to  Samuel  Powel  to  come  and  take 
his  place,  as  being  a  member  of  the  Society  before 
he  went  to  England. 

Jan.  22nd.  Ordered  "that  the  proposals  for  en- 
larging the  Society  etc.  be  revised  and  corrected  for 
publication  "in  a  neat  quarto  edition. " 

Jan.  26th.  Voted  unanimously  that  a  union  with  the 
American  Philosophical  Society  on  an  equal  footing, 
and  on  terms  equally  honorable  to  both,  was  desir- 
able. Part  2,  p.  74. 

Jan.  29th.  An  informal  conference  took  place  be- 
tween the  members  of  the  two  Societies.  The  Amer- 
ican Society  passed  a  Eesolution,  proposing  a  union 
with  the  American  Philosophical  Society. 

Feb.  2nd.  About  9  o'clock  Dr.  Thomas  Bond,  the 
Eev.  Dr.  Smith,  and  Samuel  Khoads  came  from  the 
Philosophical  Society  to  inform  the  American  So- 
ciety that  the  former  Society  had  elected  all  the 
members  of  the  American  Society  into  theirs.  A 
minute  of  this  election  was  requested,  to  be  con- 
sidered at  the  the  next  meeting. 

"The  members  of  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety were  proposed  to  be  ballotted  for  into  this 
Society. " 


ABSTRACT    FROM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          115 

Feb.  5th.  The  Society  declines  the  general  vote  of 
election  of  its  members  into  the  Philosophical  So- 
ciety, because  the  terms  of  union  implied  in  that 
election  are  not  equally  honorable  to  both  Societies. 
"As  the  gentlemen  of  the  American  Philosophical 
Society  have  conducted  themselves  politely  towards 
this  Society,"  it  was  agreed  to  draw  up  an  answer  to 
their  proceedings.  Dr.  Morgan,  Dr.  Evans,  Mr. 
Mifflin,  and  Mr.  Owen  Biddle  were  appointed  a  Com- 
mittee for  this  purpose. 

8tli.  Answer  to  the  American  Philosophical  Society 
submitted,  adopted,  and  entered  on  the  Minutes.  It 
states  that  "we  have  existed  for  some  years  as  a 
Society  for  the  promotion  of  natural  knowledge,  and 
made  some  progress  therein,  useful  at  least  to  our- 
selves, and  kept  minutes  of  our  proceedings. "  The 
answer  does  not  recognize  the  American  Philosophi- 
cal Society,  as  a  continuation  of  that  begun  in  1743; 
because  it  has  not  met  for  15  or  20  years  past,  has 
not  chosen  officers,  and  is  not,  as  we  have  good  cause 
to  believe,  possessed  of  the  books,  papers,  etc.  of  the 
former  Society.  That,  therefore,  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Society  could  not  claim  that  appellation  till 
sometime  in  last  month,  [Jan.  1768],  "and,  therefore, 
is  junior  compared  with  the  American  Society." 
[This  shows  that  the  American  Society  considered 
the  American  Philosophical  Society  a  junior,  because 
it  virtually  began  in  Jan.  1768.  Qr?  if  the  American 
Society  were  conscious  that  they  dated  from  1728, 


116  APPENDIX   B. 

would  they  not  say  that  the  American  Philosophical 
Society  is  junior,  even  conceding  that  the  latter 
Society  dates  from  1743?] 

Feb.  9th.  Some  members  apprehending  that  the 
answer  agreed  on  at  the  last  meeting,  "if  de- 
livered might  give  offence,"  held  this  meeting  to 
reconsider  it.  The  following  was  substituted  and 
ordered  to  be  delivered  by  the  Secretary  to  a  mem- 
ber of  the  American  Philosophical  Society. 

"The  Minute  of  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety of  the  2nd  instant,  which  declares  our  election 
into  that  Society  being  considered,  it  was  unani- 
mously determined  that,  as  it  was  not  on  the  terms 
proposed,  we  are  under  the  necessity  of  declining 
the  union." 

12th.  The  minutes  of  this  meeting  contain  the  cor- 
respondence with  the  American  Philosophical  Society 
In  extenso;  having  been  ordered  to  be  copied  "into 
the  book,  as  of  this  evening." 

A  motion  was  adopted  that  C.  Thomson,  Isaac 
Paschall,  Dr.  Morgan,  and  Dr.  Evans  "be  appointed 
to  draw  up  a  short  plain  history  of  the  origin  of 
this  Society,  and  of  what  has  passed  between  this 
and  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  and  lay  it 
before  the  Company  at  some  future  meeting."  [This 
"history"  does  not  appear  to  have  been  ever  drawn 
up.] 

"His  Excell.  William  Franklin,  Esq.  being  the  only 
member  of  the  ancient  Society,  who  has  not  signed 
the  rules  in  this  book,  Dr.  Evans  is  desired  to  inform 


ABSTKACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.         117 

him,  that,  agreeable  to  what  was  concluded  on  in 
reviving  the  Society,  if  he  chooses  to  sign  our  rules 
and  give  us  a  meeting,  he  shall  be  considered  as  a 
regular  member. "  .See  Part  1.  p.  82,  and  p.  102  of 
this  Abstract,  for  the  explanation  of  "what  was  con- 
cluded on,  in  reviving  the  Society. " 

George  Roberts  elected. 

John  Morris  elected. 

C.  Thomson,  Dr.  Morgan,  and  0.  Biddle,  appointed 
to  revise  and  correct  the  "Proposals,"  entered  on 
the  Minutes  of  Jan.  1,  1768,  and  prepare  them  for 
the  press. 

Here  follows  the  correspondence  with  the  Ameri- 
can Philosophical  Society,  already  alluded  to;  viz. 

Dr.  Thomas  Bond's  letter  to  Dr.  Morgan,  dated 
Jan.  28,  1768,  in  answer  to  the  first  overture  of  union, 
made  by  the  American  Society,  in  conformity  to  their 
minute  of  the  26th  of  Jan.  1768. 

Dr.  Thomas  Bond  and  the  Eev.  Dr.  William 
Smith's  letter,  dated  Feb.  5,  1768,  giving  a  copy  of 
the  minute  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society  of 
Feb.  2,  1768,  electing  all  the  members  of  the  Ameri- 
can Society  into  the  Philosophical  Society. 

Feb.  19tli.  John  Morris  introduced. 

Dr.  Evans  reported  an  Extract  from  a  letter  from 
Gov.  Franklin  as  follows: —  "When  I  come  to  town, 
I  shall  do  myself  the  .pleasure  of  meeting  you  as  an 
old  member  and,  if  I  like  your  new  Eules  as  I  prob- 
ably shall,  will  sign  them,  and  make  it  my  business 
to  attend  as  often  as  I  possibly  can." 


118 


APPENDIX   B. 


Benjamin  Franklin  elected. 

John  Bartram  elected. 

William  Bartram  and  Dr.  John  Chapman  elected 
corresponding  members. 

Feb.  22nd.  First  meeting  noted  as  assembling  in 
the  "  Union  Library  Room." 

George  Roberts  introduced  and  qualified. 

The  "  Proposals "  read,  and  ordered  to  be  immedi- 
ately published  in  the  Pennsylvania  Chronicle,  and 
other  papers,  "and  that  five  copies  be  printed  in  a 
neat  quarto  edition. " 

26th.  Isaac  Jamineau,  Rev.  Jonn.  Odell,  Richard 
Wells,  Dr.  Hugh  Mercer,  and  Samuel  Elliot  of  Bos- 
ton, elected  corresponding  members; — Benjamin  Rush 
and  Oswell  Eve,  members. 

Dr.  Bard  accepts  his  election  of  Mar.  27,  1767,  in 
a  letter  from  New  York. 

Mar.  4th.  Rev.  Mr.  Jonn.  Odell,  happening  to  be  in 
town,  was  introduced,  qualified,  and  presented  with  a 
certificate.  James  Alexander  elected. 

llth.  James  Alexander,  introduced,  qualified,  and 
signed  the  rules. 

"C.  Thomson,  the  Corres.  Sec.  informed  the  Com- 
pany, that,  at  his  instance  and  request,  S.  Powel, 
Esq.,  and  Dr.  J.  Morgan  had  suffered  their  names 
to  go  with  his  at  the  end  of  the  Proposals,  as  persons 
to  whom  letters  should  be  directed." 

18th.  Richard  Wells,  introduced,  qualified,  and  fur- 
nished with  a  certificate  of  membership. 


ABSTKACT    FROM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          119 

Ordered  the  publication  in  the  newspapers,  signed 
by  the  Corres.  Sec.,  of  thanks  for  certain  presents  of 
natural  objects  made  to  the  Society. 

April  1st.  Capt.  Oswell  Eve,  introduced  and  quali- 
fied. Sam.  Eobinson,  elected  a  resident  member; 
and  Gov.  Hopkins,  Jos.  Harrison,  Peter  Harrison, 
Dr.  Bensell,  John  Sellers,  John  P.  Simitiere,  Andrew 
Oliver,  Jonathan  Belcher,  John  Kidel,  and  Jeremiah 
Dixon,  Corresponding  members. 

8th.  Abel  James,  Eev.  Jacob  Duche,  Dr.  Charles 
Moore,  John  Foxcroft,  Francis  Hopkinson,  Michael 
Hillegas,  Stephen  Watts,  George  Morgan,  Thomas 
Fisher,  Lewis  Nicola,  and  William  White,  elected 
resident  members;  and  Edward  Antill,  Peter  Miller, 
Humphrey  Marshall,  Benjamin  Jacobs,  James  Webb, 
Frederick  Post,  John  Okely,  and  James  Wright,  Cor- 
responding members. 

15th.  Lewis  Nicola,  and  William  White  were  qual- 
ified, and  subscribed  the  Eules. 

C.  Thomson  and  Dr.  Morgan  are  appointed  to 
agree  with  the  printer  for  200  copies  of  Moses 
Bartram's  paper  on  silk  worms. 

Sir  Geo.  Saville,  Mr.  Famitz,  Thomas  Warner,  Sir 
Alex.  Dick,  Martin  Butt,  Sidney  George,  Dr.  Alex. 
Garden,  Eev.  Samuel  Stillman,  Dr.  Warner,  Sam. 
Warner,  Dr.  William  Cullen,  Paul  Bedford,  John  F. 
Oberlin,  Dr.  Lionel  Chalmers,  elected  Corresponding 
Members. 

22nd.  Thomas  Fish  qualified.     E.  Izard,  Eev.  Mr. 


120  APPENDIX   13. 

Elliot  of  Boston,  and  David  Jamison,  elected  Cor- 
responding Members. 

The  Corresponding  Secretary  is  desired  to  provide 
a  blank  book  for  recording  useful  projects,  inventions, 
discoveries,  etc.  made  by  or  communicated  to  the 
Society. 

29th.  J.  Foxcroft  introduced.  Stephen  Paschall 
elected  a  member,  and  John  Gill,  of  Kinsale,  Ire.,  a 
Corresponding  Member. 

May  13th.  A  rough  draught  of  Eules  for  the  So- 
ciety, read,  considered,  and  deferred.  Messrs. 
Thomas  Warner,  Ashton  Warner,  and  Samuel  War- 
ner, of  Antigua,  returned  thanks  for  Corresponding 
Membership. 

June  3rd.  John  Smith,  Charles  Eeed,  and  Dr.  John 
Paschall  elected  Corresponding  Members. 

June  10th.  Messrs.  Robert  Smith  and  Benjamin 
Loxley,  proposed  at  last  meeting,  being  members  of 
the  American  Philosophical  Society,  were  not  elected. 
Benj.  West,  elected  a  Corresponding  Member;  and 
Samuel  Miles,  a  resident  member. 

21st.  Benjamin  Jacobs  accepts  Corresponding  Mem- 
bership. 

July  1st.  Dr.  John  Tweedy  and  Eowland  Evans 
elected  Corresponding  Members. 

15th.  Stephen  Paschall  introduced  and  qualified. 
Wm.  White  produced  a  fair  copy  of  the  Eules,  which 
were  read  and  considered,  and  the  determination 
deferred  to  another  meeting. 


ABSTKACT    FKOM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          121 

Aug.  13th.  John  P.  Simitiere  (Corresponding  Mem- 
ber) introduced.  Thomas  Coomb,  Sen.  elected  a  resi- 
dent member,  and  Dr.  Benj.  Gale  and  Pool,  Corre- 
sponding Members. 

Sept.  23rd.  Jos.  Bringhurst  elected.  At  this  meet- 
ing the  laws,  revised  once  more,  are  ratified,  and,  in 
their  new  form,  copied  on  the  minutes.  The  Society 
now  took  the  name  of  "The  American  Society,  held  at 
Philadelphia  for  promoting  Useful  Knowledge." 

[The  Kules  are  much  changed.  The  four  qualifi- 
cations are  dispensed  with,  and  an  ' '  Obligation "  is 
substituted,  which  must  be  signed  by  the  member  on 
his  introduction.  The  members  are  divided  into  Fel- 
lows, and  Corresponding  Members,  and  the  officers 
changed  to  a  President,  Vice-President,  Secretary, 
and  Corresponding  Secretary,  three  Curators,  and  a 
Treasurer,  to  be  elected  annually  at  the  last  meeting 
in  April.  The  anniversary  is  continued  (the  first  of 
May)  on  which  to  dine  or  sup  together,  "the  better 
to  preserve  that  friendship  which  is  proposed  by  the 
members. "] 

Oct.  7th.  "C.  Thomson  is  desired  to  get  a  book  with 
the  Obligation  copied  therein,  where  the  members 
may  sign.'7 

14th.  "The  Medical  Society,  subsisting  in  this 
place, ' '  proposed  to  be  incorporated  with  this  Society. 

Jos.  Bringhurst  elected  a  fellow,  and  Arbo,  Win. 
Scull,  Joseph  Hutchins,  Himili,  and  Day,  Correspond- 
ing Members. 


122 


APPENDIX   B. 


Oct.  21st.  Thomas  Foxcroft  elected  a  fellow. 

28th.  Agreed  that  the  "Officers  be  chosen  next  Fri- 
day, and  that  written  notices  be  sent  to  each  Fellow. " 

"Charles  Thomson  is  desired  to  bring  with  him  the 
^opy  of  the  Laws  which  he  has  made,  and  the  Obliga- 
tion transcribed  in  a  book  for  the  Fellows  to  sign." 

John  Benezet  elected  a  Fellow. 

No v.  4th.  The  Society  elected  Benjamin  Franklin 
President;  Samuel  Powel,  Vice-President ;  Charles 
Thomson  and  Thomas  Mifflin,  Secretaries;  Dr.  Mor- 
gan, Lewis  Nicola,  and  Isaac  Bartram,  Curators ;  and 
Clement  Biddle,  Treasurer.  "Charles  Thomson,  hav- 
ing, brought  with  him  a  book  wherein  the  Laws  were 
fairly  copied,  the  same  were  read." 

"The  Obligation  being  also  copied  in  another  part 
of  the  same  book,  the  fellows  present  subscribed  the 
same,  and  each  paid  the  sum  of  ten  shillings  as  admis- 
sion money." 

The  Philadelphia  Medical  Society,  instituted  the 
14th  of  February,  1765,  was,  by  unanimous  agree- 
ment, united  and  incorported  with  this  Society. 

Isaac  Smith  and  John  Walker,  elected  Correspond- 
ing Members. 

Nov.  llth.  Four  members  of  the  Medical  Society, 
Sonmans,  Glentworth,  Bayard,  and  Clarkson,  signed 
the  Obligation.  John  Benezet  also  signed.  Lambert 
Cadwalader  chosen  a  Fellow. 

18th.  Samuel  Miles  subscribed  the  Obligation.  The 
Corresponding  Secretary  informed  the  meeting  that 


ABSTRACT    FROM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          123 

the  American  Philosophical  Society,  desirous  *of  a 
union,  had,  at  their  last  meeting,  appointed  a  Commit- 
tee, composed  of  their  two  Vice-Presidents,  two  Sec- 
retaries, and  Messrs.  Ehoads  and  Syng,  to  confer  with 
a  Committee  of  this  Society,  and  consider  of  the 
terms  of  union.  The  American  Society,  appointed  as 
their  Committee,  S.  Powel,  Vice-President,  Charles 
Thomson,  and  Thomas  Mifflin,  Secretaries,  Messrs.  J. 
Morgan  and  L.  Nicola,  two  of  the  Curators,  and  Mr. 
Isaac  Paschall. 

The  Society  next  instructed  their  Committee  under 
five  heads,  relating  to  the  name,  Laws,  first  place  of 
meeting,  etc.  of  the  United  Society.  Nothing  to  be 
concluded  on  by  the  Committee  but  everything  to  be 
laid  before  the  Society  for  their  sanction. 

John  Cadwalader  and  John  Murgatroyd  chosen 
fellows.  James  Wilson,  William  Hewson,  and  Ed- 
ward Biddle,  chosen  Corresponding  members. 

Nov.  25th.  Jacob  Duche  and  Edward  Penington 
elected  Fellows;  and  Capt.  Gardner  and  Dr.  Mien, 
Corresponding  Members. 

Dec.  2nd.  The  Committee  of  Conference  reported 
the  minutes  of  a  meeting  had  with  the  Committee  of 
the  American  Philosophical  Society,  which  minutes 
are  copied  on  the  Society  Minutes.  The  Society  pro- 
ceeded to  consider  and  amend  the  conference  minutes. 

They  agree  to  unite  on  terms  of  perfect  equality 
under  the  name  of  "The  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety, held  at  Philadelphia  for  promoting  Useful 


124 


APPENDIX   B. 


Knowledge ;"  being  a  name,  comprehending  as  near 
as  possible,  the  designation  of  the  original  Societies ; 
to  meet  at  an  indifferent  place,  not  previously  used 
by  either  Society;  to  elect  officers  at  the  first  meeting; 
and  to  digest  the  Laws  of  both  Societies  into  one 
Code  after  the  union.  They  also  proposed  to  have 
a  new  Minute  book  for  the  United  Society,  with  a 
certain  preamble,  followed  by  seven  articles  of  union. 
See  part  2,  p.  143,  for  the  preamble  and  articles. 

Henry  Drinker,  Matthew  Clarkson,  Joseph  Stiles, 
Joseph  Galloway,  Thomas  Levezly,  and  Samuel 
Wharton,  elected  fellows. 

9th.  The  Committee  of  Conference  reported  nine 
articles  as  agreed  upon  by  both  Committees,  as  the 
terms  of  the  union.  Here  the  officers  are  settled  to 
be,  one  patron,  one  president,  three  vice-presidents, 
one  treasurer,  four  secretaries,  and  three  curators; 
all,  except  the  patron,  to  be  elected  at  the  first  meet- 
ing in  Jan.  next.  The  Governor  of  the  Province  to 
be  waited  on  by  a  Committee  of  the  United  Society,  to 
request  him  to  be  the  patron. 

Dec.  16th.  This  evening,  Dr.  Cadwalader,  Dr.  Red- 
man,  Jacob  Duche,  Rev.  Mr.  Duche,  Mr.  Penington, 
Mr.  Hopkinson,  Mr.  Lambert  Cadwalader,  and  Mr. 
Murgatroyd,  signed  the  Obligation,  agreeably  to 
the  Eules. 

Dec.  20th.  Benjamin  Wynkoop,  John  Drinker, 
Thomas  Gilpin,  Thomas  Clifford,  Levi  Hollingsworth, 
James  Worrell,  and  Isaac  Wharton,  elected  fellows. 


ABSTRACT    FROM    THE    JUNTO    MINUTE    BOOK.          125 

Some  explanations  of  the  Articles  of  Union  of  the 
joint  Committee  asked  for,  and  amplifications  made, 
by  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  to  prevent 
any  misunderstanding.  The  latter  agreed  to  by  the 
American  Society  unanimously.  The  Societies  then 
exchanged  their  lists  of  members. 

On  the  minutes  of  the  American  Society  are  inserted 
at  length,  their  list  of  members,  as  well  as  the  list 
of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  furnished  to 
them  by  the  latter. 

The  Committee  of  the  American  Society  reported 
that  the  Philosophical  Society  had  voted  the  union  on 
the  terms  reported  by  the  joint  Committee,  and  as 
explained  this  evening.  Whereupon,  the  American 
Society  resolved  unanimously  to  unite  with  the  Philo- 
sophical Society  on  these  terms. 

Dec.  30th.  The  treasurer  presented  his  account, 
from  which  it  appeared  that  there  was  not  money 
in  his  hands  sufficient  to  defray  the  debts  of  the 
Society;  whereupon  a  Committee  was  appointed  to 
settle  finally  with  the  Treasurer;  and  in  case  the 
outstanding  admission  money  is  not  sufficient  to  pay 
the  debts  of  the  Society,  the  Committee,  with  the 
Treasurer,  was  empowered  to  lay  an  assessment  on 
the  Fellows  to  discharge  them. 

The  members  were  desired  to  meet  at  the  College 
on  the  succeeding  Monday  (Jan.  2,  1769)  to  elect  offi- 
cers of  the  United  Society. 


APPENDIX    C. 
CHKONOLOGICAL  STATEMENT. 

1727.  Autumn.  Formed  the  Junto.  Met  on  Friday 
evenings.  Every  member  in  turn  to  produce  one  or 
more  queries  on  any  point  of  Morals,  Politics,  or  Nat- 
ural Philosophy,  to  be  discussed,  and  once  in  three 
months  on  any  subject  he  pleased.  Our  debates  were 
to  be  under  the  direction  of  a  president,  and  to  be 
conducted  in  the  sincere  spirit  of  inquiry  after  truth, 
without  fondness  for  dispute  or  desire  of  victory. 

The  first  members  besides  Franklin,  were  Joseph 
Breintnal,  Thomas  Godfrey,  ("He  soon  left  us") 
Nicholas  Scull,  William  Parsons,  William  Mangridge, 
Hugh  Meredith,  Stephen  Potts,  George  Webb,  Eobert 
Grace,  and  William  Coleman.  My  friendship  for 
William  Coleman  "continued  without  interruption 
to  his  death,  upwards  of  forty  years;  and  the  club 
continued  almost  as  long,  and  was  the  best  school  of 
philosophy,  morality,  and  politics  that  then  existed  in 
the  province. "  Franklin's  Autobiography.  1  Sparks, 
81  et  seq.  Written  by  Franklin  in  1771.  1  Sparks  1. 
Note. 

List  of  members  given  by  Eoberts  Vaux,  derived 
from  the  papers  of  his  grandfather,  Hugh  Eoberts  :— 
"B.  Franklin,  Hugh  Eoberts,  William  Coleman, 
Philip  Syng,  Enoch  Flower,  Joseph  Wharton,  William 
Griffiths,  Luke  Morris,  Joseph  Turner,  Joseph  Ship- 

126 


CHKONOLOGICAL   STATEMENT.  127 

pen,  Joseph  Trotter,  Samuel  Jervis,  Samuel  Rhoads, 
Joseph   Brientnall. "     Hazard's   Register,   XV,   183. 

1728.  "  Eules   for   a   Club   established  for  mutual 
Improvement."    These  rules  were  drawn  up  in  1728. 
1 '  Our  debates  were  to  be  under  the  direction  of  a  pres- 
ident,'7 etc.    2  Sparks  9.     Twenty-four  queries  to  be 
read  over  by  each  member  on  the  morning  of  each 
meeting.     Ibid. 

1729.  Discussion    in    Junto    about    paper    money. 
1  Sparks,  90. 

1730.  About  Sep.  1.     Junto  met,  not  at  a  tavern, 
but  at  a  little  room  of  Mr.  Grace's,  and  they  clubbed 
their  books.     By  help  of  friends  of  the  Junto,  got 
fifty  subscribers  to  a  subscription  library.     1  Sparks 
96,  97. 

1731.  Left  the  ale  house  where  they  first  met,  and 
hired  a  room  to  hold  their  Club  in.     1  Sparks,  99. 

1732.  June  30.    "  That  all  new  members  be  qual- 
ified by  the  four  qualifications,  and  all  the  old  ones 
take."     2  Sparks  551  et  seq. 

1733.  "I  ever  forbid  myself,  agreeably  to  the  old 
laws  of  our  Junto,  the  use  of  every  word  and  ex- 
pression in  the  language  that  imparted  a  fixed  opin- 
ion."   1  Sparks,  116. 

1735.  Published  pieces  in  his  newspaper  which  he 
had  read  before  the  Junto.     (Socratic  Dialogue — Vic- 
ious man  not  a  man  of  sense).    1  Sparks,  123. 

1736.  Junto  useful,  and  some  members  wished  to 
introduce  their  friends,  and  increase  the  number  of 


128 


APPENDIX    C. 


members  above  twelve,  the  original  number.  Instead 
of  this  Franklin  proposed  that  each  member  should 
form  a  subordinate  Club,  with  the  same  rules,  con- 
cealing the  existence  of  the  original  Club.  Five  or 
six  were  formed.  The  Vine,  the  Union,  the  Band. 
1  Sparks,  129. 

1737.  Wrote  a  paper,  to  be  read  at  the  Junto,  about 
the  irregularities  of  the  Watch,  and  proposing  the 
hiring  of  proper  men.  Approved  of  by  the  Junto, 
and  communicated  to  the  other  Clubs,  as  if  origi- 
nating with  them.  This  led  to  a  law  being  passed, 
carrying  out  the  plan.  1  Sparks,  132-33. 

Eead  to  Junto,  a  paper  about  fires,  which  led  to 
the  establishment  of  the  first  fire  company.  1  Sparks, 
133. 

1743.  May  14.    "A  proposal  for  promoting  useful 
knowledge  among  the  British  Plantations  in  America. ' ' 
This   proposal,   printed   as   a   circular   letter,    dated 
Philadelphia,    contains   this   paragraph.     "That    one 
Society  be  formed  of  Virtuosi  or  ingenious  men,  re- 
siding  in   the    several   colonies,   to   be   called   "The 
American  Philosophical  Society,  who  are  to  maintain 
a  constant  correspondence."     6  Sparks  14-15. 

Nov.  4.  My  long  absence  from  home  put  my  busi- 
ness so  far  behindhand  that  I  had  no  leisure  to 
forward  the  scheme  of  the  Society.  Franklin  to  C. 
Colden,  6  Sparks,  25. 

1744.  March  27.  John  Bartram  to  Colden,  referring 
to  the  A.  P.  S.    6  Sparks,  14  (note). 


CHKONOLOGICAL   STATEMENT.  129 

April  5.  Franklin  to  Golden  about  the  A.  P.  S., 
giving  a  list  of  members,  and  division  of  sciences 
among  them.  6  Sparks,  28. 

Proposed  and  established  a  Philosophical  Society. 
1  Sparks,  144. 

1749.  Associated  in  the  design  of  an  academy,  a 
number  of  active  friends,   of  whom  the  Junto  fur- 
nished a  good  part.    1  Sparks,  158. 

1750.  Beginning  of  the  Society-Junto  in  this  year, 
as   per   following   extract   from    C.    Thomson's    Ms. 
letter  to  Franklin,  dated  Nov.  6,  1768. 

"You  remember  the  Society  to  which  I  belonged, 
which  was  begun  in  the  year  1750.  By  the  death  and 
removal  of  some  of  its  members,  it  dwindled  for 
some  time  to  that  degree,  that  I  was  apprehensive  of 
its  dissolution."  Mr.  Fisher's  paper,  p.  153. 

1753.  July  16.  li.  .  .  My  respects  to  Mrs.  Eoberts 
and  to  all  our  oM  friends  of  the  Junto,  Hospital,  and 
Insurance."  Franklin  to  Hugh  Eoberts.  7  Sparks, 
77.  (Note) 

1757.  July  27.  Franklin  and  his  son  William  Frank- 
lin arrive  in  London.    1  Sparks,  226. 

December  18.  Eoom  and  necessaries  appear  to  be 
paid  for  by  the  Society-Junto  from  this  date  to  Sam. 
Carruthers,  as  per  receipt.  See  front  page  of  Junto 
Minute  book. 

1758.  February    13.    Fines    due    in    Society- Junto 
from  this  date.     See  Minutes  Nov.  3,  1758. 

September  16.  "Two  of  the  former  members  of  the 


130 


APPENDIX   C. 


Junto  you  tell  me  are  departed  this  life,  Potts  and 
Parsons. "  ...  "I  do  not  quite  like  your  absenting 
yourself  from  the  good  old  Club,  the  Junto. "  Frank- 
lin to  Hugh  Roberts.  7  Sparks,  181. 

September    22.    Date    of    the    first    Society-Junto 
Minutes  extant. 

1759.  I.  Paschall  proposes  "How  may  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Lakes  be  best  improved  to  the  advantage 
of  the  English! "     See  Minutes  under  this  date. 

1760.  Philip    Syng,    Jun.    was    buried    in    Christ 
Church  burial  ground,  Nov.  14,  1760.     Certif.  of  EoU. 
R.  Bringhurst,  Clerk. 

1761.  February  26.   "You  tell  me  you   sometimes 
visit   the   ancient   Junto.     I   wish   you   would   do   it 
oftener.     I  know  they  all  love  and  respect  you,  and 
regret    your    absenting    yourself    so    much.     People 
are   apt   to   grow   strange   and   not  understand   one 
another  so  well,  when  they  meet  but  seldom.     Since 
we  have  held  that  Club  till  we  are  grown  grey  to- 
gether, let  us  hold  it  out  to  the  End.     For  my  own 
Part,  I  find  I  love  Company,  Chat,  a  glass,  and  even 
a  song,  as  well  as  ever;  and  at  the  same  Time  relish 
better  than  I  us'd  to  do,  the  grave  observations  and 
wise  sentences  of  old  men's  Conversation;  So  that  I 
am  sure  the  Junto  will  be  still  as  agreeable  to  me 
as  it  ever  has  been:  I  therefore  hope  it  will  not  be  . 
discontinued  as  long  as  we  are  able  to  crawl  together." 
Franklin  to  H.  Roberts.     7  Sparks,  223.     [Original 
in  the  possession  of  Charles  Morton  Smith,  Esq.] 


CHKONOLOGICAL    STATEMENT.  131 

July  30.  A  narrative  in  Society-Junto  minute  book, 
explaining  a  revival.  Eules  copied.  "1.  That  this 
Society,  called  the  Junto,  meet  every  Friday  evening " 
etc.  Four  qualifications  given.  Substantially  the 
same  as  those  of  the  Franklin- Junto.  Junto  Minutes, 
Part  1.  pp.  81,  83,  84. 

1761.  Oct.  16,  to  Sep.  3,  1762.     For  this  interval  of 
nearly  eleven  months,  no  minutes  known  to  exist  of 
the   Society-Junto.     For   this   period   it   is   probable 
that  no  meetings  took  place.     See  further  on,  date, 
Sept.  10,  1762. 

1762.  End  of  August.     Franklin  sailed  from  Eng- 
land with  his  son,  and  arrived  in  Philadelphia  on  the 
1st  of  Nov.,  after  an  absence  of  more  than  five  years. 
A  few  days  before  he  sailed,  his  son  was  appointed 
Governor  of  New  Jersey.    1  Sparks,  268,  269. 

Sep.  3.  "The  members  of  the  Junto,  desirous  of 
continuing  the  Society,  met  this  evening,  having 
again  agreed  with  Mr.  Carruthers  for  the  room  on 
the  same  terms,  on  which  they  had  it  formerly, "  etc. 
See  Junto  Minutes  of  this  date. 

Sept.  10.  E.  Physick  excuses  himself  for  not  having 
introduced  Ch.  Moore,  a  member  elect,  because  he 
went  on  a  journey,  "soon  after  which  the  Society 
was  discontinued.  Now  we  are  met  again"  etc.  C. 
Moore  was  elected  Oct.  2,  1761.  Only  two  meetings 
are  recorded  afterwards  in  the  minute  book,  after 
which  a  hiatus  exists  until  Sep.  3,  1762.  See  Junto 
Minutes  under  date  of  Sep.  10,  1762. 


132  APPENDIX    C. 

Oct.  22,  to  Apr.  25,  1766.  For  this  interval,  em- 
bracing 3^  years,  no  minutes  are  known  to  exist; 
but  six  members  were  elected  in  the  interval,  whose 
names  first  appear  as  present  on  the.  minutes  of  Apr. 
25,  1766.  Between  Sep.  3  and  Oct.  22,  1762,  both 
dates  inclusive,  there  were  six  meetings  and  two 
attempts  at  meetings.  With  the  exception  of  these, 
no  meetings  are  recorded  from  Oct.  16,  1761,  to  April 
25,  1766,  a  period  of  4^  years. 

1762.  November  1.  Franklin  arrived  in  Philadel- 
phia. 

1764.  November  7.  Franklin  left  Philadelphia  on  his 
second  mission  to  England.    1  Sparks,  287.    Arrived 
Dec.  9.     7  Sparks,  281.     He  was  consequently  back 
two  years. 

1765.  May  20.  "I  sometimes  visit  the  worthy  re- 
mains of  the  ancient  Junto,  for  whom  I  have  a  high 
esteem,    but    alas    the    political,    polemical    divisions 
have  in  some  measure  contributed  to  lessen  that  har- 
mony we  there  formerly  enjoyed. "    Hugh  Roberts  to 
Franklin.     Franklin  papers,  in  the  possession  of  the 
Society. 

July  7.  "I  wish  you  would  continue  to  meet  the 
Junto,  notwithstanding  that  some  effects  of  our  pub- 
lic political  misunderstandings  may  sometimes  appear 
there.  It  is  now  perhaps  one  of  the  oldest  clubs,  as 
I  think  it  was  formerly  one  of  the  best,  in  the  King's 
dominions.  It  wants  but  about  two  years  of  forty 
since  it  was  established.  We  loved  and  still  love  one 


CHKONOLOGICAL    STATEMENT.  133 

another;  we  are  grown  gray  together,  and  yet  it  is 
too  early  to  part.  Let  us  sit  till  the  evening  of  life  is 
spent.  The  last  hours  are  always  the  most  joyous. 
When  we  can  stay  no  longer,  it  is  time  enough  then 
to  bid  each  other  good  night,  separate,  and  go  quietly 
to  bed."  7  Sparks,  300. 

1766.  Feb.  27.  "Remember  me  affectionately  to  the 
Junto. "  Franklin  to  H.  Roberts,  7  Sparks,  308. 

March  1.  "The  Junto  fainted  last  summer  in  the 
hot  weather,  and  has  not  yet  revived;  your  presence 
might  reanimate  it  without  which  I  apprehend  it  will 
never  recover."  P.  Syng  to  Franklin.  Franklin's 
papers  in  the  possession  of  the  Society. 

April  25.  This  is  the  date  of  the  first  meeting  re- 
corded, after  the  long  chasm  in  the  minutes.  The 
minutes  of  this  date  are  preceded  by  a  new  draught 
of  the  Laws,  which  were  adopted,  (except  the  name 
"Junto/'  which  was  under  advisement  for  alteration) 
on  the  30th  of  May  1766.  The  new  name  "The 
American  Society  for  promoting  and  propagating 
Useful  Knowledge,  held  in  Philadelphia,"  was  not 
adopted  until  the  13th  of  December  following.  The 
new  draught  of  the  Laws  was  evidently  at  first  writ- 
ten out  with  a  blank,  to  receive  the  new  name  when 
decided  on,  which  will  be  found  inserted  in  a  different 
hand-writing  in  the  draught. 

1768.  January  1.  C.  Thomson  read  his  Proposal  for 
enlarging  the  Society,  about  nine  pages  in  the  minute 
book.  In  the  proposal  is  this  sentence: —  "By  some 


134  APPENDIX    C. 

happy  genius  magnetism  may  be  reduced  to  certain 
laws,  in  the  same  manner  as  electricity  now  is  by  the 
unwearied  diligence  and  sagacity  of  the  ingenious 
Doctor  Franklin. " 

February  8.  "We  have  existed  for  some  years  as 
a  Society  for  the  promotion  of  natural  knowledge" 
etc.  Extract  from  the  answer  of  the  American 
Society  to  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  in  re- 
lation to  a  union.  Junto  Minute  book,  Part  2,  p.  79. 
This  answer  was  never  sent.  See  p.  81. 

February  12.  "His  Excellency  William  Franklin, 
Esq.,  being  now  the  only  member  of  the  ancient  Society 
who  has  not  signed  the  rules  in  this  book"  etc. 
Junto  Minute  Book,  Part  2,  p.  82. 

February  19.  Franklin  elected  a  member  of  the 
American  Society,  p.  87. 

November  4.  Franklin  Elected  President  of  the 
American  Society,  p.  132. 

November  6.  Date  of  C.  Thomson's  letter  to  Frank- 
lin, stating  that  the  American  Society  was  begun  in 
1750,  and  informing  him  of  his  election  as  President 
of  it. 

1769.  January  llth.  William  Coleman  died.  Ex- 
tract from  the  family  register,  furnished  by  Coleman 
Fisher,  Esq. 

June  7th.  "I  long  Meditated  a  Revival  of  our  Amer- 
ican Philosophical  Society,  and  at  length  I  thought 
I  saw  my  way. clear  in  doing  it,  but  the  old  party 
le[a]ven  split  us  for  a  Time.  We  are  now  united, 


CHKONOLOGICAL    STATEMENT.  135 

and,  with  your  Presence,  may  make  a  Figure,  but, 
till  that  happy  Event,  I  fear  much  will  not  be  done." 
Dr.  Thomas  Bond  to  Franklin.  1  Sparks,  578.  [Also 
Franklin  Papers  in  A.P.S.  II.  179.] 

1773.  January  22.  "Nor  can  we  entertain  a  doubt 
of  the  like  encouragement  on  all  necessary  occasions, 
when  we  have  the  happiness  to  behold  the  first  person 
in  the  administration  of  this  government  now  sitting 
as  our  patron."*  Extract  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm. 
Smith's  Oration  before  the  A.  P.  S.  delivered  on  the 
above  date,  page  11. 

1775.  May  5.  Franklin  arrived  in  Philadelphia  after 
his  second  mission  to  England.     Absent  more  than  10 
years.     1  Sparks,  391. 

1776.  October  26.  Sailed  for  France,  and  arrived  in 
30  days  in  Quiberon  Bay.    1  Sparks,  417. 

1782.  May  21.  "And  gradually  established  many 
necessary  institutions,  among  which  was  this  Philo- 
sophical Society,  so  early  as  in  '43,  when  the  plan 
was  formed  and  published,  the  members  chosen,  and 
an  invitation  given  to  all  ingenious  persons  to  co- 
operate and  correspond  with  them  on  the  laudable 
occasion."  Extract  from  Dr.  Thomas  Bond's  Ora- 
tion before  the  A.  P.  S.  delivered  on  the  above  date, 
page  2. 

1785.  June  24.  "Philip  Syng,  the  only  other  surviv- 
ing member  here,  of  the  old  Junto,  labours  under  in- 
firmities, keeps  much  at  home,  where  I  can  seldom  go 

*  ' '  The  Honorable  Kichard  Perm,  Esq.,  Governor  of  the  Province. ' ' 


136  APPENDIX    C. 

to  visit  him."  H.  Roberts  to  Franklin.  Hazard's 
Register,  XV,  184. 

September  14.  Franklin  arrived  in  Philadelphia, 
after  an  absence  in  France  of  nearly  nine  years. 
1  Sparks,  591. 

1791.  March  1.  The  Franklin  Junto,  "after  having 
subsisted  forty  years,  .  .  .  became  at  last  the  foun- 
dation of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  now 
assembled  to  pay  the  debt  of  gratitude  to  his  memory. 
A  book  containing  many  of  the  questions,  discussed 
by  the  Junto,  was,  on  the  formation  of  the  American 
Philosophical  Society,  delivered  into  my  hands,  for 
the  purpose  of  being  digested,  and  in  due  time  pub- 
lished among  the  transactions  of  that  body."  Rev. 
Dr.  William  Smith's  Eulogium  on  Franklin,  delivered 
on  the  above  date,  page  13. 

[The  foregoing  Eeport  was  received  by  the  Society 
and  its  consideration  deferred  to  the  Stated  Meeting 
of  November  5th  1841,  when  the  resolution  appended 
to  the  Eeport  was  adopted 

Mr.  Du  Ponceau  stated  that  it  was  his  wish  to  re- 
vise his  Paper  on  the  early  history  of  the  Society, 
and  to  withdraw  it  for  that  purpose. 

Dr.  Isaac  Hays  offered  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  be  permitted  to 
withdraw  his  papers  from  the  Archives  of  the  So- 
ciety for  the  purpose  of  revision.  Adopted. 

From  the  Minutes}. 


ADDITIONAL  DATA  COLLECTED  IN  1910. 


BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN  TO  CADWALLADER  COLDEN. 

PHILADELPHIA,  August  15,  1745. 

.  .  .  ''The  members  of  our  Society  here  are  very 
idle  gentlemen.  They  will  take  no  pains.  I  must,  I 
believe,  alter  the  scheme  and  proceed  with  the  papers 
I  have,  and  may  receive,  in  the  manner  you  advise  in 
one  of  your  former  letters. "  .  .  .—Smyth's  -Franklin, 
II.,  289. 

CHARLES  THOMSON  TO  WILLIAM  FRANKLIN. 

1757    [!] 

.  .  .  "Our  Society  goes  on  well.  We  have  agreed  to 
purchase  an  electrical  apparatus,  and  a  Martin's  opti- 
cal apparatus.  I  believe  we  shall  trouble  you  to 
assisting  in  choosing  the  latter  for  us.  But  of  this 
more  hereafter."  .  .  . — Franklin  Papers  in  A.P.S., 
XL  VIII.,  120. 

HUGH  EGBERTS  TO  BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN. 

PHILADELPHIA,  May  15,  1760. 

"Pursuant  to  thy  order,  I  have  2  or  3  times  re- 
visited the  ancient  Junto  (gentlemen  for  whom  I  have 
a  great  esteem)  and  I  found  some  relaxation  from  the 
anxiety  which  attends  business,  yet  I  cannot  say  that 
the  variety  of  trivial  chat  (to  which  I  am  also  in- 
clined) affords  satisfaction  when  under  restraint,  so 
that  in  some  respects  there  must  be  an  union  of 

137 


138  ADDITIONAL    DATA. 

thought  and  affection  to  make  company  altogether 
agreeable,  and  the  Hours  glide  with  ease  and  pleas- 
ure. " 

Draft  of  letter  in  the  possession  of  Charles  Morton 
Smith,  Esq. 

HUGH  ROBEETS  TO  BENJAMIN  FBANKLIN. 

PHILADELPHIA,  October  12,  1765. 
.  .  .  "The  remaining  members  of  the  good  old 
Junto  adjourned  during  the  warm  and  short  even- 
ings and  are  now  endeavoring  to  find  a  House  for 
their  and  thy  reception  where  we  may  sit  with  more 
satisfaction  than  of  late." 

Draft   of  letter  in  possession   of   Charles   Morton 
Smith,  Esq. 

CADWALADEK  EVANS  TO  WILLIAM  FKANKLIN. 

PHILADELPHIA,  January  25,  1768. 
.  .  .  "Dr.  Bond,  then,  strenuously  endeavored  to 
revive  the  old  Society,  begun  by  your  Father  25  years 
ago  &  to  wch  he  had  offered  to  be  Secretary  [he 
broached  the  scheme  to  several  and  a  plan  was  fixed 
and  they  held  a  meeting]  at  Byrnes 's  to  elect  a  Presi- 
dent, Vice-President,  Secretary  &c.  I  was  told  your 
Father  was  to  be  President  and  Smith  or  Ewing  Sec- 
retary. Whether  they  chose  the  officers  that  Night  or 
not,  I  cannot  say,  but  they  Ballotted  in  Govr.  Penn  & 
between  20  &  30  others  as  you  will  see  by  the  proposals 
accompanying  this.  .  .  .  You  may  have  heard  that 
some  Members  of  the  young  Junto,  together  with 


ADDITIONAL    DATA.  139 

others  associated,  have  met  every  Friday  night  for 
two  or  three  years  past,  to  improve  themselves  in  nat- 
ural knowledge,  and  make  collections  of  the  different 
kinds  of  fossils.  .  .  .  This  young  Junto  ever  since  last 
September  had  been  fabricating  a  plan  from  that  of 
the  Eoyal  Society  and  the  Society  for  Arts,  Com- 
merce &c  and  proposed  taking  in  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  ingenious  &  publick  spirited  Gentlemen  to  aid 
and  forward  their  design.  .  .  .  Several  of  our  friends 
are  disposed  to  favor  it  and  with  myself  are  ballotted 
in;  but  Ed:  Physick,  a  proprietary  officer,  and  some 
others  of  the  Company  are  rather  for  a  Junction  and 
puzzle  their  schemes.  The  affair  stands  thus,  and  I 
have  been  warmly  solicited  to  state  it  to  you,  to  sus- 
pend, at  least,  your  joining  Govr  Penn,  Smith  &c.  I 
told  them  I  thought  there  was  not  much  danger  and 
promised  to  do  it  because  it  is  said  you  are  to  be 
•chosen  by  them.  Ch.  Thomson  is  extremely  zealous 
for  supporting  their  institution. ' '  .  .  . 

Franklin  Papers,  A.  P.  S.,  Vol.  58,  Folio  2. 

WILLIAM  FRANKLIN  TO  CADWALADEK  EVANS. 

JANUARY  29,  1768. 

' '  I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  your  Account  of  the 
two  new  Philosophical  Societies;  but  the  printed  pro- 
posals to  which  you  refer  me,  were  not  sent,  owing  I 
suppose  to  your  Hurry.  I  am  at  a  Loss  to  know  with 
what  Propriety  they  can  talk  of  reviving  the  old  So- 
ciety began  by  my  Father ;  for  they  are  not  I  believe  in 


140  ADDITIONAL    DATA. 

possession  of  any  of  the  papers  &c.  which  belong  to  it., 
I  think  I  saw  them  all  some  years  ago  in  my  Father's 
possession  and  have  no  doubt  but  that  they  are  so  still. 
I  question  whether  any  of  the  persons  who  met  to 
revive  it  were  ever  Members,  except  Dr.  Bond  and  S. 
Ehoads;  &  I  think  before  they  attempted  to  revive  it 
they  should  have  summoned  a  Meeting  of  all  the  old 
Members,  &  consulted  them  on  the  occasion.  If  they 
refused  to  join  in  the  Measure  then  the  others  might 
have  endeavored  to  form  a  new  Society  either  upon 
the  old  plan  or  some  other.  But  I  fancy  their  scheme 
in  calling  this  a  Eevival  of  the  old  Society — is  to  induce 
my  Father  to  countenance  it,  or  by  making  use  of  his 
Name  to  engage  his  Friends  &  Connections.  How- 
ever, you  may  rely  that  the  Bait  won't  take  with  mer 
&  I  am  very  happy  to  find  that  it  has  not  with  you." 
Franklin  Papers  in  A.  P.  S.,  »Vol.  47,  page  43. 

CADWALADEK   EVANS    TO   BENJAMIN    FEANKLIN. 

PHILADELPHIA,  Nov.  27,  1769. 

.  .  .  "I  have  not  attended  the  meetings  of  our  So- 
ciety for  ten  months  past  because  I  must  have  been  a 
solemn  witness  to  transactions  inconsistent  with  my 
Judgment  or  perpetually  engaged  in  party  disputa- 
tions; both  of  which  were  irksome  to  me.  .  .  .  When 
Dr.  Bond  proposed  to  me  the  plan  of  the  last  Society, 
with  Smith  and  Ewing  for  Secretaries,  I  told  him 
I  could  not  join  them,  because  I  considered  ye  objects 
or  purposes  of  the  institution  were  inquiries  after 


ADDITIONAL    DATA.  141 

things  as  they  really  are,  with  the  uses  they  are  capa- 
ble of  being  applied  to  for  general  benefit,  but  that 
such  real  facts  or  truths  could  not  possibly  pass  thro' 
such  tainted  conduits  without  contracting  a  tange  that 
would  so  disguise  them  as  to  deceive  the  world  and 
eventually  do  discredit  to  every  member  of  the 
Society. "  .  .  .—Franklin  Papers  in  A.P.S.,  II.,  Folio 
201. 

WILLIAM  SMITH  IN  EULOGIUM  ON  BENJAMIN  FKANKLIN. 
"For  the  purpose  of  aiding  his  and  increasing  the 
materials  of  information,  one  of  the  first  societies 
formed  by  Dr.  Franklin,  was  in  the  year  1728,  about 
the  22d  of  his  age,  and  was  called  the  JUNTO.  It  con- 
sisted of  a  select  number  of  his  younger  friends,  who 
met  weekly  for  the  "Discussion  of  Questions  in 
Morality,  Politics  and  Natural  Philosophy. "  The 
Number  was  limited  to  twelve  members,  who  were 
bound  together  in  all  the  ties  of  friendship,  not  only 
In  mutual  communication  of  knowledge,  but  in  all  their 
worldly  undertakings.  This  Society,  after  having  sub- 
sisted forty  years,  and  having  contributed  to  the  for- 
mation of  some  very  great  men,  besides  Dr.  Franklin 
himself,  became  at  last  the  foundation  of  the  American 
Philosophical  Society,  now  assembled  to  pay  the  debt 
of  gratitude  to  his  memory.  A  book  containing  many 
of  the  questions  discussed  by  the  Junto  was,  on  the 
formation  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  de- 
livered into  my  hands,  for  the  purpose  of  being 


142  ADDITIONAL    DATA. 

digested,  and  in  due  time  published  among  transac- 
tions of  that  body." 

Eulogium  on  Benjamin  Franklin  delivered  March  1st 
1791  before  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  and, 
agreeably  to  their  appointment,  by  William  Smith, 
D.D.  one  of  the  Vice-Presidents  of  the  said  society, 
and  Provost  of  the  College  and  Academy  of  Phila- 
delphia. Philadelphia:  1792,  page  13. 

DEFINITION  OF  DATE  OF  FOUNDING. 
"By  Date  of  Founding,  is  meant  the  year  in  which  the 
institution  was  established  out  of  which  the  present 
college  or  university  has  developed.  Thus  the  year 
1780  is  the  date  of  the  foundation  of  an  academy  at 
Washington,  Pennsylvania,  from  which  Washington 
and  Jefferson  College  greiv." 

Carnegie  Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of  Teach- 
ing, 2d  Annual  Report  of  President  and  Treasurer^ 
1907,  page  18. 


ADDENDUM 


COMMUNICATION  OF 
J.  FKANCIS  FISHEK,  EsQ.1 
READ  JUNE  26TH,  1840. 

At  the  stated  Meeting  of  the  Society  on  the  19th  of 
June,  I  heard  for  the  first  time  that  our  learned  and 
venerable  President  had  prepared  a  History  of  our 
Society,  or  at  least  of  its  formation;  and  that  he  had 
been  induced  to  undertake  it  at  this  moment  by 

1  This  communication  should  have  followed  that  of  Mr.  Du  Ponceau, 
but  it  had  been  misplaced  in  the  Archives  of  the  Society  and  was  not 
found  until  after  the  foregoing  papers  had  been  printed.  It  was 
transmitted  to  the  Society  with  the  following  letter : 

To  JOHN  K.  KANE,  ESQU. 

SECRETARY  OP  THE  AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  beg  you  to  present  the  following  sheets  as  soon  as  possible  this 
Evening — Either  to  be  read  immediately  after  Mr.  DuPonceau's 
Paper  on  the  History  of  the  Society,  or  to  be  referred  unread  to  the 
Committee  appointed  on  it. 

Had  not  Mr.  DuPonceau's  Paper  already  been  presented  to  the 
Society,  and  an  adjourned  meeting  called  to  hear  it  read,  before  I 
knew  the  subject  of  it,  I  should  not  trouble  the  Society  with  my 
Communication,  but  have  spoken  or  written  privately  to  the  Presi- 
dent, giving  him  my  authorities  on  which  Mr  Sparks  relied  in  pre- 
paring his  sketch  of  the  Society's  History  published  in  the  Appendix 
to  the  first  volume  of  Franklin's  Works. 

This  would  have  been  the  most  proper  course,  but  it  is  now  too 
late,  and  I  have  only  to  hope  that  my  venerated  friend  will  not  think 
it  ill  done  by  me  that  I  place  in  your  hands  a  short  recapitulation  of 
my  reasons  for  doubting  that  the  old  Junto  Club  was  the  founda- 
tion of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  &  that  he  will  appreciate 

143 


144  ADDENDUM. 

reading  in  the  Appendix  to  the  first  Volume  of  Mr 
Sparks'  Collection  of  Dr  Franklin's  Works  an  ac- 
count of  the  two  Societies  by  the  union  of  which  our 
Association  was  formed  in  1769,  and  finding  in  it 
several  errors  of  sufficient  Importance  to  correct  in  a 
formal  communication  to  our  Fellow  Members. 

Every  paper  from  our  excellent  &  learned  friend 
must  be  of  great  interest,  and  I  am  delighted  to  find 
that  he  is  again  induced  to  take  his  pen  to  give  us 
the  result  of  his  research,  the  collections  of  tradi- 
tion, and  his  own  recollections  of  the  early  history  of 
our  Society,  to  which  his  learning  has  added  so  much 
lustre,  and  which  I  trust  will  long  be  honoured  by  his 
name  as  President. 

I  have  not  seen  this  manuscript  which  is  to  be  read 
at  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  Society;  and  it  may 
appear  unnecessary  for  me  to  add  any  thing  to  a 
Communication  which  may  well  be  supposed  to  con- 
tain all  the  facts  extant  upon  the  subject — and  even 

my  motives  in  presenting  them  at  once  rather  than  give  them  the 
appearance  of  any  contradiction  or  criticism  of  his  account  of  our 
Early  History. 

As  my  communication  embraces  sketches  of  three  Associations 
existing  before  1769  when  an  union  of  two  of  them  formed  our 
present  Society — and  as  I  must  necessarily  run  over  the  same  ground 
described  by  our  learned  President,  you  may  think  it  best  and  have 
my  permission  to  omit  any  part  of  my  paper  in  reading'  it  to  our. 
fellow  members. 

With  the  highest  Esteem 

I  am  truly  yr.  friend 

J.  FRANCIS  FISHER. 

June  26th  1840. 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FKANCIS    FISHER.  145 

presumptuous  in  me,  to  differ  on  any  point  from  our 
learned  President  before  hearing  all  he  has  to  say: — 
But,  it  is  precisely  because  I  wish  to  avoid  all  collision 
with  him,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  appear  to  correct 
.his  statements  or  inferences  that  I  now  submit  the 
following  pages  which  contain  my  own  notions  as 
to  the  origin  of  our  Society,  not  thinking  that  my  view 
&  inferences  from  the  same  facts  ought  for  a  moment 
to  be  considered  with  those  of  Mr  DuPonceau,  but 
expecting  to  adduce  some  authority  new  to  him, 
which  if  the  history  of  the  American  Philosophical 
Society  is  to  be  printed  ought  not  to  be  disregarded. 

I  have  however  a  still  stronger  reason  for  trespass- 
ing on  your  attention.  It  is  to  do  justice  to  my 
friend  Mr  Sparks,  and  his  very  valuable  publication 
— If  there  are  errors  in  his  account  of  our  Society,  I 
am  answerable  for  them,  as  it  is  in  great  measure 
made  up  from  extracts  taken  by  myself  from  the  old 
Minute  Books.  He  requested  me  to  examine  them  for 
him,  send  him  such  excerpts  as  I  thought  important, 
and  give  him  my  own  view  of  the  origin  of  our 
Society.  I  did  so  at  large,  and  it  is  from  my  notes 
that  he  abridged  his  account  of  the  two  original 
Associations. 

I  have  not  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  him,  but  I  will 
endeavour  to  recollect  and  as  briefly  as  possible 
repeat  the  important  facts  in  it.  It  is  a  matter  of  no 
moment  to  myself  whether  I  be  found  right  or  in 
error — but  it  may  be  thought  of  some  importance  that 


146  ADDENDUM. 

this  Society  should  not  have  it's  history  handed  down 
erroneously  in  a  work  of  such  authority. 

I  believe  I  am  aware  of  the  principal  point  in  Mr 
Sparks'  account  which  will  be  objected  to  by  Mr 
DuPonceau  having  had  some  months  ago  a  conversa- 
tion with  the  latter  as  to  the  antiquity  of  our  Society, 
and  I  shall  be  very  brief  upon  all  the  others. 

Mr.  Sparks  speaking  of  one  of  the  original  Soci- 
eties, that  instituted  in  1743  under  the  name  of  the 
American  Philosophical  Society  of  which  Thomas 
Hopkinson  was  first  President,  says  "This  Society 
had  no  connexion  with  the  Junto  which  is  often  men- 
tioned in  Franklin's  Autobiography,  &  which  had 
been  established  many  years  before"  and  again 
"In  the  mean  time"  (after  the  establishment  of  the 
former)  "another  Society  sprang  up  in  Philadelphia 
which  was  called  the  Junto  or  Society  for  the  Promo- 
tion of  Useful  Knowledge.  The  date  of  the  origin  of 
this  Society  is  unknown  that  portion  of  the  Eecords 
which  has  been  preserved  begins  September  22,  1758" 
&c.  &c. 

The  Junto  was  instituted  in  1727.  It  was  a  Club  at 
first  entirely  private,  limited  to  twelve  in  number, 
meeting  for  philosophical  &  literary  conversation 
and  social  enjoyment.  It  is  probable  they  kept  no 
regular  Minutes,  had  no  written  communications, 
possessed  no  library  or  collections,  and  had  few 
accounts  but  those  settled  weekly  with  the  respectable 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FRANCIS    FISHER.  147 

Innkeeper  around  whose  fire  side  they  assembled; 
which,  if  a  tradition  I  have  heard  be  correct,  was  at 
the  Old  Indian  King  in  Market  Street  below  Third. 

The  first  members  according  to  Dr  Franklin  were 
Joseph  Breintnall,  Thomas  Godfrey,  Nicholas  Scull, 
William  Parsons,  William  Mangridge,  Hugh  Mere- 
dith, Stephen  Potts,  George  Webb,  Eobert  Grace,  and 
William  Coleman — ten  besides  Benjamin  Franklin, 
at  later  periods  others  were  elected  to  supply  the 
place  of  those  dead  or  retired  and,  if  we  may  rely  on 
a  list  found  I  believe  by  Eobert s  Vaux  among  the 
papers  of  his  Grandfather,  these  were  the  following 
— Hugh  Eoberts,  Philip  Syng,  Enoch  Flower,  Joseph 
Wharton,  William  Griffitts,  Luke  Morris,  Joseph 
Turner,  Joseph  Shippen,  Joseph  Trotter,  Samuel 
Jarvis,  and  Samuel  Ehoads  making  eleven  more.  The 
Club  was  kept  up  till  most  of  these  were  dead,  having 
lasted  according  to  Dr  Franklin  nearly  forty  years.1 

About  ten  years  after  its  institution  (1736)  an 
attempt  was  made  to  enlarge  the  Club — Franklin  was 
opposed  to  it,  but  suggested  that  each  of  the  twelve 
members  should  form  a  subordinate  Club  of  similar 
character  to  report  to  the  Junto.  This  plan  after 

partial  success  seems  to  have  fallen  through,  but  the 

• 

Old  Club  survived. 
In  a  Letter  to  Hugh  Eoberts  from  Boston  dated 

1  Vide  Autobiography  page  82.  Sparks  Ed. :  If  it  did  not  last  quite 
40  years  it  could  not  be  the  Society  for  Promoting  useful  Knowledge 
which  was  united  to  the  American  Philosophical  Society  forty-two 
years  after  the  foundation  of  the  Junto. 


148  ADDENDUM. 

July  16.  1753.  Franklin  sends  his  "respects  to  all  our 
old  friends  of  the  Junto " 

In  one  to  the  same  from  London  dated  September 
16.  1758,  he  gives  the  characters  of  Potts  and  Parsons 
two  of  the  old  members  lately  dead. 

Writing  to  the  same  from  London — Feby.  26.  1761 
he  says  ' '  You  tell  me  you  some  times  visit  the  ancient 
Junto — I  wish  you  would  do  it  oftener.  I  know  they 
all  love  &  respect  you,  &  regret  your  absenting  your- 
self so  much  *  *  *  Since  we  have  held  that  Club  till 
we  are  grown  gray  together  let  us  hold  it  out  to  the 
end"  &c 

Again,  July  7.  1765  he  writes  "I  wish  you  would 
continue  to  meet  the  Junto,  notwithstanding  some 
effects  of  our  public  political  misunderstandings  may 
sometimes  appear  there.  It  is  now  perhaps  one  of  the 
oldest  Clubs,  as  I  think  it  was  formerly  one  of  the 
best  in  the  King's  dominions.  It  wants  but  about  two 
years  of  being  forty  since  it  was  established" 

2And  finally  Feby  27,  1766— He  says  "Kemember 
me  affectionately  to  the  Junto" 

This  is  the  last  mention  I  find  of  tlie  Old  Club — It  is 
possible  it  subsisted  a  few  years  longer — that  it  may 
have  welcomed  to  its  meetings  its  Founder  on  his 
return  from  England,  &  enjoyed  with  him  before  its 
extinction,  a  few  more  of  those  agreeable  evenings  to 

2  The  letters  from  which  the  above  extracts  are  taken  are  very 
interesting — I  had  the  good  fortune  to  procure  most  of  them  for  Mr 
Sparks. 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FRANCIS    FISHEE.  149 

which  he  so  fondly  refers.  For  the  present  I  leave 
it,  only  hereafter  referring  to  it  to  show  that  it  did 
not  terminate  by  a  union  with  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Society. 

I  believe  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Society  of  1743 — of  which  Benjamin 
Franklin  was  certainly  the  projector  as  may  be  seen 
by  his  Proposals  dated  May  14,  1743. 

This  was  to  be  not  merely  a  Club  like  the  Junto, 
but  truly  a  Philosophical  Society  on  as  extensive  a 
scale  as  the  state  of  the  Country  would  admit  of,  to 
consist  only  of  men  who  had  some  pretention  to 
scientific  attainments,  &  to  embrace  as  many  as  pos- 
sible of  such  in  all  parts  of  America.  Each  mem- 
ber, as  may  be  seen  in  the  list  given  by  Franklin  in 
his  letter  to  Dr  Colden,  selected  his  own  department 
or  committee.  Their  meetings  were  to  be  monthly,  or 
oftener,  for  the  sake  of  receiving  letters  &  communi- 
cations, witnessing,  experiments  &c.  They  were  to 
publish  a  Quarterly  Bulletin  of  Proceedings,  and  at 
the  end  of  the  year  collections  of  such  experiments, 
discoveries  and  improvements  as  may  be  thought  of 
public  advantage.  In  fact,  this  is  really  the  Model 
and  Germ  of  our  Society.  To  it  we  must  look  back  as 
to  our  earliest  progenitor  and,  when  May  1843  arrives, 
can  properly  celebrate  our  Centennial  Anniversary. 

The  first  President  of  this  Society  was  Thomas 
Hopkinson,  Franklin  being  Secretary.  How  long  it 


150 


ADDENDUM. 


was  kept  up  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover:  prob- 
ably not  more  than  four  years,  as  I  find  at  the  time 
of  the  Treaty  for  a  union  with  the  Society  for  Pro- 
moting Useful  Knowledge,  among  other  objections 
made  by  the  latter  Society  to  be  merged  in  the  other 
by  a  simple  election  of  all  its  members  by  the  Philo- 
sophical Society,  that  the  latter  had  not  held  any 
meetings  for  twenty  years — and  this  was  probably 
true. 

It  was  however  still  thought  to  exist  by  its  surviv- 
ing members,  who  met  in  November  1767,  elected  a 
large  number  of  new  members  chiefly  of  the  friends  of 
the  Proprietaries  &  richest  men  of  the  Province,  as 
well  as  some  few  from  other  parts  of  America,  chose 
Governor  James  Hamilton  their  President,  and  recom- 
menced their  regular  Meetings  after  the  old  plan. 
The  letter  read  last  Friday  Evening  addressed  by 
the  Eevd  Provost  Smith,  one  of  the  Secretaries  to 
Governor  Hamilton,  with  the  thin  Minute  Book  in  our 
possession  shew  that  their  attention  was  directed  to 
Science  and  that  they  had  already  taken  measures  for 
observing  the  Transit  of  Venus. 

It  was,  I  believe,  by  this  Society  that  the  proposal 
was  first  made  for  an  incorporation  with  the  Ameri- 
can Society  for  promoting  Useful  Knowledge.  In 
February,  1768  they  elected  all  its  Members  into  the 
Philosophical  Society,  but  it  was  not  until  the  2d  of 
June,  1769  that  the  Union  was  effected  under  the  joint 
name  we  at  present  bear. 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FBANCIS    FISHEK.  151 

The  American  Society  for  promoting  Useful  Knowl- 
edge was  instituted  in  1750s — Its  original  name  was 
the4  Junto  or  Society  for  the  promotion  of  Useful 
Knowledge.  The  earliest  of  it's  records  which  we 
possess  begin  September  22d.  1758.  It  seems  to  have 
been  an  Association  rather  for  the  mutual  improve- 
ment of  the  Members  by  discussing  a  great  variety 
of  subjects  than  for  enlarged  philosophical  enquiry. 
It  is  needless  to  recapitulate  the  History  of  this  So- 
ciety through  its  various  declines,  revivals  and  reor- 
ganizations till  its  reunion  with  the  Philosophical 
Society 

Tho'  somewhat  similar  in  its  plan  and  objects  to 
the  Old  Junto  and  consisting  in  1758  of  the  same 
number  of  Members  (12),  it  could  at  most  have  been 
only  a  copy  or  a  Junior  Society.  It  consisted  then 
of  young  men,  the  majority  of  whom  were  at  least 
twenty  years  younger  than  Dr  Franklin.  The  Names 
given  are  Francis  Eawle,  Charles  Thomson,  S. 
Wooley,  P.  Chevalier,  I.  Mather,  Philip  Syng,  I. 
Paschall,  Ed:  Physick,  William  Franklin,  I.  Howell, 
W.  Hopkins,  P.  Jackson.  That  these  were  all,  is 
proved  by  the  Minutes  in  our  possession  where  at 
most  of  the  meetings  the  absent  are  named  as  well 

3  This  fact  I  have  only  ascertained  within  a  few  days — tho'  my 
previous  opinions  had  nearly  fixed  the  year  of  its  establishment. 

4  This  name  Junto  which  was  dropped  by  the  Society  a  few  years 
afterwards  has  been  the  chief  source  of  confusion  &  mistake  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  association. 


152  ADDENDUM. 

as  the  present,  with  the  cause  or  excuse,  as  " apolo- 
gized, "  "unwell,"  "out  of  town,"  "absent  in  Eng- 
land" (as  William  Franklin  was  at  the  second 
Meeting). 

Dr  Franklin,  then  could  not  have  been  a  member,  as 
absence  in  England  did  not  suspend  membership, 
nor  Hugh  Eoberts,  nor  any  of  the  other  survivors  of 
the  Old  Junto  and  these  were  several  at  that  time. 
In  a  letter  above  quoted,  dated  February,  1761,  Dr 
Franklin  speaks  of  Hugh  Eoberts '  occasional  attend- 
ance at  the  meetings  of  the  Old  Club — now  had  it 
been  the  same  as  this  Society  its  Minutes,  which  for 
three  previous  years  are  regularly  kept,  would  have 
mentioned  his  presence  which  they  do  not  nor  does 
the  name  of  any  of  Franklin's  associates  of  the  Junto 
occur  but  that  of  Philip  Syng,  who  was  perhaps  son 
of  the  member  of  the  old  Club  of  the  same  name. 

But  this  is  not  all,  Dr  Franklin,  tho'  still  in  Eng- 
land, was  elected  into  this  Society  the  19th  of  Feb- 
ruary 1768,  and  chosen  it's  President  the  4th  of  No- 
vember following  just  previous  to  its  union  with  the 
American  Philosophical  Society.  Into  his  own  Club, 
the  old  Junto,  he  surely  would  not  need  a  re-election. 

So  far,  I  had  already  satisfied  myself,  when  I  heard 
of  a  letter  from  Charles  Thomson  to  Dr  Franklin 
in  the  possession  of  William  B.  Reed  Esqu  in  which 
one  of  the  Societies  was  spoken  of.  In  it  I  have  found 
unexpected  and  entire  confirmation  of  my  opinion. 

The  following  is  a  copy. 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FKANCIS    FISHEK.  153 

PHILADEL*,  Nov  6,  1768. 
Dear  Sir, 

It  is  with  pain  I  recollect  that  the  agreeable  corre- 
spondence with  which  you  were  pleased  to  honour  me 
has  been  so  long  broken  off.  Conscious  of  the  purity 
of  my  intentions  and  uprightness  of  my  conduct,  I 
waited  for  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you,  and  rested  fully 
satisfyed  that,  in  whatever  light  I  may  have  been 
represented  by  some  who  of  late  have  taken  it  into 
their  heads  to  be  dissatisfyed  with  me,  I  should  be 
found  to  have  acted  not  unworthy  the  notice  or  friend- 
ship with  which  you  have  honoured  me. 

I  longed  for  your  arrival  on  another  account,  that 
I  might  have  your  advice  and  assistance  in  the  execu- 
tion of  a  plan  which  I  flattered  myself  might  be  useful 
to  our  Country. 

You  remember  the  Society  to  which  I  belonged, 
which  was  begun  in  the  year  1750.  By  the  death  and 
removal  of  some  of  it 's  members,  it  dwindled  for  some 
time  to  that  degree  that  I  was  apprehensive  of  its 
dissolution. 

From  some  conversation  I  had  with  you,  some  few  of 
us  exerted  ourselves  to  revive  it  again.  New  members 
were  elected  and  our  meetings  became  more  regular. 
As  our  views  were  enlarged  with  our  years,5  we  be- 
came desirous  of  altering  and  enlarging  the  plan  of 
our  Society,  and  if  possible,  rendering  it  useful  to  the 
Publick.  For  this  end  the  enclosed  Proposals  were 

5  One  might  infer  from  this  the  members  were  young  men. 


1 54  ADDENDUM. 

drawn  up  and  laid  before  the  Society;  who  approved 
the  same  and  ordered  them  to  be  published,  and  imme- 
diately proceeded  to  draw  up  some  rules  for  carrying 
the  same  into  execution.  At  first,  we  met  with  some 
discouragements  and  experienced  some  difficulties, 
which  by  perseverance  are  at  last  in  a  great  measure 
overcome ;  and  I  have  now  the  pleasure  to  inform  you 
we  have  brought  the  Society  to  some  degree  of  per- 
fection. 

We  have  established  a  correspondence  in  most  of 
the  Colonies,  on  the  Continent  and  in  some  of  the 
Islands,  and  have  formed  a  set  of  Eules  or  Laws  for 
our  Government  which  I  shall  transmit  to  you  by  the 
next  opportunity. 

We  did  ourselves  the  honour  early  (Feb'y  19,  1768) 
to  elect  you  a  Member  and  requested  the  favour  of 
your  Son  and  Dr  Evans  to  inform  you. 

And  now  having  resolved  to  elect  standing  Officers, 
we  have  presumed  to  elect  you  our  President,  and 
hope  for  your  Patronage  and  Assistance.  Mr.  Samuel 
Powel  is  our  Vice-President ;  Dr  Morgan,  Major 
Nicola,  and  J.  Bartram  our  Curators;  Mr  Biddle  our 
Treasurer  and  Mr  Thomas  Mifflin  and  myself  Secre- 
taries. 

We  are  yet  in  an  infant  state,  and  dare  not 
promise  any  great  matters;  however  the  Discoveries 
already  made  and  communicated  to  us,  some  of  which 
we  have  laid  before  the  public,  encourage  us  to  hope 
that  our  undertaking  will  not  be  in  vaine. 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FKANCIS    FISHEK.  155 

I  am  with  the  greatest  esteem  and  affection 

your  sincere  friend 

CHAKLES  THOMSON. 
(Endorsed)  letter  to  Dr  Franklin.  Nov.  6.  1768 

Here  is  a  Sketch  of  the  Eise  and  Progress  of  the 
American  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Useful  Knowl- 
edge. It  is  clear  that  Franklin  was  not  itfe  Founder, 
that  he  took  no  part  in  it  except  by  advice  to  his 
young  friends  who  formed  it,  that  he  never  attended 
its  meetings,  nor  indeed  was  a  member  till  the  eve  of 
its  union  with  the  American  Philosophical  Society. 

Of  this  last  Society  he  was  really  the  Projector.  I 
have  already  referred  to  his  excellent  paper  of  Pro- 
posals, which  embraces  all  the  objects  of  a  Scientific 
association,  and  suggests  the  best  plans  for  it's  organ- 
ization and  proceedings.  Most  of  his  suggestions  are 
embodied  in  the  Constitution  and  By-Laws  of  our 
Society  and  are  not  to  be  improved  on. 

Altho'  not  the  President  of  this  Society  he  was 
certainly  it's  most  active  member  and  moving  spirit; 
and  the  suspension  of  it's  meetings  was  doubtless 
owing  to  Ms  public  Duties  at  home  and  long  absence 
in  England. 

That  he  was  not  elected  President  on  its  revival, 
was  probably  owing  to  political  feeling.  The  few 
surviving  members  who  reorganized  it  in  1768  were 
of  the  Aristocratic  or  Proprietary  Party,  and  a 
majority  of  the  newly  elected  Members  were  of  simi- 
lar connexion.  Governor  Hamilton  was  chosen,  a 


156  ADDENDUM. 

sensible  and  well  educated  man  but  an  old  one  who 
took  little  interest  in  the  Society  or  it's  objects,  and 
there  is  little  doubt  the  Society  would  have  soon  ex- 
pired after  a  short  languishing  had  not  the  great 
American  Philosopher  been  soon  placed  at  it's  head, 
and  an  Union  been  effected  with  the  more  active  and 
practical  men  of  the  other  Society. 

It  would  be  pleasing  to  believe  our  Society  the 
lineal  Descendant  of  the  Old  Junto,  the  oldest  literary 
Club  in  America — The  favourite  resort  of  Franklin : — 
It  would  be  honourable  to  our  History  to  associate 
his  name  more  intimately  with  the  first  Philosophical 
Enquiries  of  our  Predecessors.  We  must  however  be 
satisfied  that  Ms  Junto  gave  the  Example: — His 
Proposals  in  1743  the  first  Plan:  That  He  himself 
was  the  first  head  of  our  United  Societies — the  first 
of  a  series  of  distinguished  Presidents  of  whose 
names  and  works  our  Country,  as  well  as  our  City 
and  Society,  are  truly  proud. 

.  J.  FRANCIS  FISHER, 
June  24th  1840. 

In  the  preceding  sketch  there  may  be  several  trifling 
errors,  as  I  have  depended  on  Mr  Sparks  Account  of 
the  Society  &  my  own  recollections,  but  there  cannot 
be  any  material  mistake.  I  refer  the  Committee  to 
the  Minute  Books  &  Spark's  Collection  of  Franklin's 
Works. 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FRANCIS    FISHEK.  157 

J.  FKANCIS  FISHEE  TO  PETER  S.  DuPoNCEAU. 

June  30,  1840 
My  dear  Sir, 

There  are  one  or  two  observations  which  I  would 
make  on  the  apparent  discrepancies  between  your 
Account  of  the  American  Society  and  the  letter  of 
Charles  Thomson. 

Is  it  not  very  extraordinary  that  he  should  write 
'"You  remember  the  Society  to  which  I  belonged"  if 
Franklin  had  ever  been  a  Member  of  it  himself! 

Again,  he  says  "from  some  conversation  I  had  with 
you,  some  few  of  us  exerted  ourselves  to  revive  it 
again."  Now,  this  must  refer  to  the  time  Franklin 
was  in  Pennsylvania,  in  the  interval  between  the  two 
Minute  Books — which  deficiency  you  think  was  filled 
with  a  third  record  book  now  lost,  which  would  have 
shewn  the  part  taken  by  Franklin  in  the  Society 
while  here.  But  I  ask  would  Charles  Thomson  have 
written  thus  to  Dr  Franklin  if  the  latter  had  attended 
any  of  their  meetings?  Would  he  not  have  alluded 
to  his  .presence  and  the  part  he  took  in  the  concerns 
of  the  Society?  I  certainly  do  infer  from  the  letter 
that  the  only  interest  shewn  by  Franklin  in  it  was  by 
his  advice.  It  seems  to  me,  he  was  too  elevated  in 
Science  to  take  part  in  such  enquiries  as  occupied  the 
American  Society  in  its  early  days. 

My  Opinion  is  that  the  old  Junto  still  survived  but 
in  a  different  form — Consisting  now  of.  perhaps  only 
a  few  survivors  of  Franklin's  personal  &  early 


1 58  ADDENDUM. 

friends. — No  longer  so  sollicitous  about  mutual  im- 
provement, but  meeting  chiefly  for  such  social  &  intel- 
lectual enjoyment  as  suited  a  small  number  of  old 
friends.  Considering  their  education  at  an  end,  they 
had  hereafter  no  appointed  discussion,  nor  prepared 
essays,  but  indulged  in  more  congenial  chat,  and  did 
not  dispute  the  chess  or  supper  table  as  part  of  the 
Evening's  Pastime.  This  is  the  tradition  of  the 
Eoberts  Family. 

Now,  if  you  suppose  that  ceasing  to  be  a  debating 
Society  it  had  sunk  into  a  Social  Club,  like  the  Gov- 
ernor's Club  and  several  others  in  the  Province,  we 
can  account  for  another  Society  consisting  of  differ- 
ent and  younger  men  taking  the  name  of  the  Junto, 
and  even  with  the  knowledge  and  approbation  of  Dr 
Franklin,  who  would  perhaps  willingly  consent  to  the 
transfer  of  the  old  name  to  a  new  Association  with 
the  original  objects  " Mutual  Improvement"  &c 

This  also  accounts  for  his  always  writing  about  our 
"old  friends  of  the  Junto "  "the  Ancient  Junto"  &c, 
Now  the  members  of  the  American  Society,  Thomson, 
Physick,  S.  Powel  &c  were  not  old — and  the  Junta 
could  be  more  properly  called  "THE  Ancient"  when 
contrasted  with  a  new  Society  of  the  same  name,, 
than  of  it's  own  right,  if  there  existed  no  other  of 
more  recent  creation.  Thus,  too,  in  one  sense  the  old 
Junto  could  be  caMed  the  origin  of  the  American 
Society,  as  it  was  the  model  imitated  by  the  young^ 
friends  of  Dr  Franklin  who  may  have  suggested  to- 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FRANCIS    FISHER.  159 

them  the  example  and  name  of  the  old  Society  which 
had  already  been  found  so  useful  to  complete  the 
deficient  Education  of  a  circle  of  intelligent  and 
ambitious  tradesmen. 

His  set  had  derived  all  the  expected  advantage 
from  it,  and  tho'  they  still  met  together  they  could 
hardly  have  the  same  objects  but  rather  desired  to 
enjoy  convivially  at  their  meetings  the  result  of  their 
early  thrift  and  reading — to  talk  of  old  times  and 
friends,  or  of  favourite  books,  or  the  politicks  of 
the  day,  but  no  longer  to  task  their  minds  in  subtle 
disputes  or  ingenious  essays.  And  in  confirmation  of 
this  view,  see  what  Dr  Franklin  says  "  Since  we  have 
held  that  Club  till  we  are  grown  gray  together,  let 
us  hold  it  out  to  the  end.  For  my  own  part,  I  find  I 
love  company,  chat,  a  laugh,  a  glass,  and  even  a 
song,  as  well  as  ever;  and  at  the  same  time  relish 
better  than  I  used  to  do  the  grave  observations  and 
wise  sentences  of  old  men's  conversation;  so  that  I 
am  sure  the  Junto  will  be  still  as  agreeable  to  me 
as  it  ever  has  been.  I  therefore  hope  it  will  not  be 
discontinued  as  long  as  we  are  able  to  crawl  together " 
This  is  nothing  like  Charles  Thomson's  Society.  One 
would  not  infer  that  there  had  been  any  attempt  to 
revive  the  club  by  the  election  of  younger  and  more 
active  members.  It  seems  many  of  his  old  associates 
had  dropped  off  into  the  grave,  that  the  survivors 
were  infirm  but  still  able  to  enjoy  a  temperately 
jovial  evening.  The  chat — the  laugh — the  glass — the 


160  ADDENDUM. 

song  are  not  heard  of  in  Chas.  Thomson's  Society 
except  at  their  Annual  Supper.  Again  Franklin 
speaks  of  it's  age.  Now  forty  years  existence  is  not 
remarkable  for  a  literary  society  but  for  a  Club  of 
friends.  Hence  his  sollicitude  to  maintain  it — hence 
his  affectionate  fondness  for  it.  A  mere  debating 
Club  which  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  younger 
set  of  men  could  hardly  have  been  an  object  of  much 
interest  to  him. 

Dr.  Smith  might  very  well  be  in  error.  He  came  into 
the  Province  in  1755,  was  not  a  member  of  the  Amer- 
ican Society  and  had  little  or  no  social  connexion  with 
it's  members.  He  wrote  his  Eulogy  on  Franklin  in 
1790 — and,  if  he  consulted  the  records  of  the  Society, 
we  have  no  reason  to  think  he  saw  any  Minutes  earlier 
than  1758,  from  which  he  might  have  risen  with  as 
little  certainty  as  we  have.  But  Charles  Thomson 
could  not  have  been  mistaken  in  1768 — himself  the 
most  active  member  of  the  American  Society,  he 
would  not,  I  think,  have  failed  to  remind  Franklin 
that  he  had  been  an  old  member — the  founder  of  the 
Club,  when  he  sollicited  his  countenance  and  patronage 

I  write  this  to  you  that  you  may  answer  my  objec- 
tions and  submit  your  reply  with  my  letter  to  the 
Committee.  If  I  have  any  interest  in  the  matter  it 
is  to  give  all  the  importance  of  Franklin's  name  to 
the  American  Society  of  which  my  Grandfather, 
Thomas  Fisher,  was  a  member;  but  after  the  exami- 
nation of  the  Eecords  I  made  at  Mr.  Spark's  request 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FRANCIS    FISHEK.  161 

I  came  to  the  decided  conclusion  that  it  was  not  the 
continuation  of  the  old  Junto,  and  of  that  opinion  I 
admit  I  am  still. 

I  shall  be  happy  if  I  can  see  reason  to  return  to 
your  view  of  the  subject  which  was  mine  originally — 
My  new  impressions  are  confirmed  by  the  letters  to 
Hugh  Roberts  which  I  procured  for  Mr.  Sparks. 

Excuse  my  differing  from  you.  The  point  is  of  no 
great  importance,  but  when  your  very  interesting 
history  of  the  Society  is  printed,  I  wish  it  to  be  as 
accurate  as  it  is  elegant,  and  therefore  I  submit  my 
views  to  you.  If  I  am  right,  a  few  alterations  in  your 
Memoir  will  only  be  necessary — If  I  am  wrong  (and  in 
submitting  to  your  candour  &  that  of  the  Committee,  I 
shall  be  sure  I  am  so,  if  you  disagree  with  me)  I  shall 
only  be  sorry  that  I  have  occupied  so  much  of  the 
Society's  time  &  yours. 

Believe  me  with  the  highest  respect  &  sincerest 
regard 

Your  ob.  Serv1 
J.  FRANCIS  FISHER 

June  30.  1840 
To 

Peter  S.  DuPonceau  Esqr  LL.D: 

% 

Pres*.  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society 

&c  &c  &c 


162  ADDENDUM. 

J.  FRANCIS  FISHER  TO  THE  SECRETARIES  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY. 

(Read  in  Committee,  November  13.  1840.) 

To  THE  SECRETARIES  OF  THE  AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL 

SOCIETY. 
Gentlemen, 

Before  you  make  a  report  on  Mr  DuPonceau's 
communication  &  mine  relative  to  the  early  History 
of  our  Society,  I  would  wish  merely  to  state,  that  in 
giving  the  year  1744  as  the  earliest  to  which  it  could 
carry  back  its  history,  and  naming  the  Am.  Phil.  Soc7 
then  instituted  as  the  eldest  of  its  two  parents,  I  had 
no  other  object  than  to  give  Dr  Franklin  all  the  hon- 
our possible  as  our  Founder.  There  is  little  doubt  that 
he  was  the  Projector  of  that  Society.  Of  the  Society 
for  promoting  Useful  Knowledge  he  clearly  was  not 
the  founder  &  could  hardly  be  considered  a  member 
as  he  never  was  present  at  a  meeting  nor  seems  to 
have  been  in  any  communication  with  it  &  was  only 
elected  first  a  member  &  then  its  President  a  short 
time  before  its  union  with  the  Am.  Phil.  Socy  after 
that  union  was  projected  &  probably  with  a  view  to  it. 
It  does  not  appear  to  me  that  he  took  any  part  in 
the  negociations  for  the  union  &  tho'  elected  the  first 
President  of  the  united  Society  can  in  no  way  be  con- 
sidered its  parent  unless  we  go  back  to  the  year  1744 
&  take  the  Society  of  that  year  as  our  oldest  ances- 
tress. Tho'  it  became  dormant  for  more  than  twenty 
years  he  was  still  considered  a  member  on  its  revival ; 


COMMUNICATION    OF    J.    FKANCIS    FISHEK.  163 

it  was  carried  on  after  the  plan  probably  drawn  up 
by  Mm,  which  was  certainly  a  more  enlarged  one  & 
more  resembling  that  adopted  by  our  Society  than 
the  form  of  the  Socy  for  Proms  Useful  Knowledge, 
I  lately  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Sparks,  which  I 
have  unfortunately  mislaid  or  I  would  send  it  to  you. 
The  purport  of  it  was  this — He  had  learnt  that 
Mr  DuPonceau  had  written  a  History  of  the  Society 
giving  an  account  essentially  at  variance  with  the 
brief  sketch  in  one  of  his  Notes.  He  calls  upon  me  to 
answer  it — and  at  the  same  time  states  that  after  my 
having  given  him  my  sketch,  which  he  abridged  into 
that  note,  he  examined  the  Minutes  of  the  two  old 
Societies  himself,  and  came  precisely  to  the  same  con- 
clusion as  I  had  done.  Neither  he  nor  myself  need,  I 
hope,  disavow  any  wish  to  detract  from  the  fame  of 
Dr  Franklin. 

I  am  very  glad  I  have  anticipated  the  wish  of  my 
friend  Mr  Sparks  without  the  necessity  of  review- 
ing or  answering  Mr  DuPonceau 's  communication — of 
which  I  hope  to  avoid  the  appearance  as  well  as  the 
reality 

With  the  greatest  regard 

I  am  Grentn.  yr.  ob.  Serv't 

J.  FBANCIS  FISHEK 


REPOBT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 

ON"   THE 

DATE  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE 
SOCIETY 

APPOINTED,  FEBKUAKY  18,  1910 

BEAD  MAY  1ST,  1914 

Your  committee  appointed  on  February  18,  1910,  to 
investigate  and  determine  the  date  of  the  foundation  of 
the  Society  has  the  honor  to  report : 

In  the  appendix  to  the  first  volume  of  the  Works  of 
Franklin  edited  by  Jared,  Sparks,  which  were  pub- 
lished in  1840,  appeared  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the 
American  Philosophical  Society.  The  material  was 
prepared  by  Mr.  J.  Francis  Fisher,  who  had  become 
a  member  of  the  Society  in  1833.  It  seems  to  have  been 
the  general  belief  up  to  this  time  that  the  Society  was 
descended  from  Franklin's  famous  Junto  of  1727;  but 
the  doubts  expressed  by  Mr.  Sparks  and  the  denial  im- 
plied in  the  facts  alleged  by  Mr.  Fisher  gave  rise  to 
differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  exact  date  of  its  founda- 
tion. The  venerable  President  of  the  Society,  Mr.  Du- 
Ponceau,  who  had  become  a  member  in  1791,  was  im- 
pelled by  his  position  and  his  knowledge  of  the  history 
and  origins  of  the  association,  derived  from  conversa- 

164 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          165 

tions  with  many  of  its  early  members,  to  refute  the 
statements  and  arguments  advanced  by  Mr.  Fisher 
against  the  prevailing  belief.  He  prepared  an  elabo- 
rate "Historical  Account "  of  the  origin  of  the  Society, 
in  which  he  gave  his  reasons  for  his  conviction  "that 
the  ( American  Society '  was  no  other  than  the  Junto 
established  by  Franklin,  which,  when  it  was  united  to 
the  'Philosophical'  Society,  had  only  changed  its  name, 
extended  its  views,  and  increased  the  number  of  its 
members,  without  ceasing  to  be  a  continuation  of  the 
original  association. "  (See  Historical  Account,  p.  4.) 
Presented  on  the  19th  of  June,  1840,  this  paper  was 
read  at  an  adjourned  meeting  held  a  week  afterward; 
and  at  the  same  time  Mr.  Fisher's  communication  was 
read  in  defence  of  the  new  views  set  forth  by  Mr. 
Sparks  and  himself. 

These  papers  were  referred  to  a  special  committee, 
which,  on  October  15,  1841,  made  an  elaborate  report 
based  upon  the  papers  in  question  and  upon  certain 
supplementary  letters  and  other  material.  After  re- 
viewing all  the  available  evidence,  the  Committee  ar- 
rived at  two  conclusions,  one  theoretical  and  not  quite 
final,  the  other  practical  and  explicit.  They  found  that 
the  account  given  by  Mr.  Sparks  of  the  origin  of  the 
Society  is  "substantially  correct, "  and  concluded,  after 
reciting  the  admitted  facts  that  the  present  Society 
was  formed  in  1769  by  the  union  of  the  American  So- 
ciety, which  was  known  as  the  Junto  as  early  as  1750 
and  down  to  1767,  and  the  American  Philosophical  So- 


166  KEPOKT  OP  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

ciety,  which  was  founded  in  1743, — "that  the  evidence 
before  the  Committee  does  not  establish  the  identity 
of  the  Junto  which  was  formed  by  Franklin  in  1727, 
with  that  which  afterwards  became  the  American  So- 
ciety, though  they  appear  to  have  been  the  same  in 
many  marked  particulars" ;  and  that  "dating  from  the 
establishment  of  the  elder  parent-society,  our  centen- 
nial anniversary  should  be  celebrated  on  the  14th  (25th, 
new  style)  of  May  1843." 

This  report  of  the  older  committee,  apart  from  their 
recommendation  in  regard  to  the  centennial  anniver- 
sary, was  designedly  inconclusive.  "It  must  be  ad- 
mitted/7 they  say,  "that  chasms  still  remain  in  our 
early  annals  which  require  to  be  filled  up,  that  doubts 
exist  upon  some  points  and  discrepancies  of  opinion  on 
others. ' '  In  the  hope  that  more  facts  might  be  obtained 
to  fill  these  gaps  they  recommended  that  neither  Mr. 
DuPonceau's  paper  nor  Mr.  Fisher's  be  published, 
and  that  "both  be  deposited  in  the  archives  as  valuable 
contributions  to  the  early  history  of  the  Society. "  It 
is  clear  that  the  committee  did  not  regard  the  year  1743 
as  absolutely  fixed  for  the  official  date  of  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Society ;  they  simply  recommended  it  as  the 
terminus  from  which  to  reckon  their  centenary,  as  the 
date  of  "the  establishment  of  the  elder  parent-society." 
There  was  no  question  in  regard  to  that  date ;  and,  as 
1827  was  long  passed,  the  approaching  year  1843 
seemed  to  the  committee  to  be  clearly  indicated  for  the 
celebration.  Their  action,  therefore,  did  not  finally 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          167 

dispose  of  the  question  whether  or  not  the  origin  of  the 
American  Society  is  to  be  traced  to  the  Junto  founded 
by  Franklin  in  1727 ;  and  it  is  this  question  which  your 
present  Committee  has  considered.  We  have  carefully 
reviewed  the  evidence  presented  to  the  Committee  of 
1840,  which  is  now  printed  and  accompanies  this  re- 
port ;  we  have  given  due  attention  to  such  new  evidence 
as  could  be  found;  and  we  have  been  guided  by  the 
same  principle  that  was  in  the  minds,  though  perhaps 
not  quite  enough  in  the  view,  of  the  older  Committee, 
which  has  been  formulated  in  the  ruling  of  the  Car- 
negie Foundation  for  the  case  of  educational  institu- 
tions, to  wit,  that  "by  date  of  founding  is  meant  the 
year  in  which  the  institution  was  established,  out  of 
which  the  present  college  or  university  has  developed. ' ' 
The  American  Philosophical  Society  as  at  present 
constituted,  was  formed  in  1769  by  the  union  of  the 
society  originally  of  the  same  name,  founded  by  Frank- 
lin in  1743,  with  a  body  known  as  the  American  Society 
for  Promoting  and  Propagating  Useful  Knowledge, 
which  was  the  new  name  formally  adopted  by  the  Junto 
in  December  1766.  Was  this  Junto,  later  known  as  the 
American  Society,  the  Junto  founded  by  Franklin  in 
1727,  or,  as  the  older  Committee's  report  contends,  was 
it  a  society  established  about  1750  in  close  imitation  of 
Franklin's  Junto,  conceivably  by  sons  or  friends  of  the 
members  of  the  older  society,  with  the  result  that  two 
societies  under  the  same  name  of  "The  Junto"  existed 
for  some  time  side  by  side? 


168  KEPOKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

Of  Franklin's  Junto  little  is  known  beyond  what  he 
tells  in  his  autobiography.  It  seems  to  have  gone 
through  the  usual  phases  of  activity,  somnolence,  or 
even  suspended  animation,  and  revival.  Its  member- 
ship was  limited  to  twelve,  its  proceedings  were  secret. 
It  still  existed  in  1765,  when  Hugh  Eoberts  writes  to 
Franklin,  "I  sometimes  visit  the  worthy  remains  of 
the  ancient  Junto." 

The  minutes  of  the  Junto  in  the  Society's  possession, 
— the  organization  which  your  present  Committee  be- 
lieve to  be  Franklin's  old  club,  but  which  the  older 
Committee  claimed  to  be  of  separate  origin, — begin  on 
September  22,  1758,  and  extend  to  October  22,  1762. 
From  October  16,  1761,  until  September  3,  1762,  there 
had  been  no  meetings.  On  the  date  last  named  the  fol- 
lowing minute  is  made:  "  The  members  of  the  Junto 
desirous  of  continuing  the  Society,  met  this  evening, 
having  again  agreed  with  Mr.  Caruthers  for  the  room 
on  the  same  terms  on  which  we  had  it  formerly. ' '  Only 
a  few  more  meetings  were  held  until  October  22,  1762, 
when  three  members  were  present  and  two  members 
were  noted  as  absent.  Here  ends  the  first  volume  of 
minutes.  The  next  volume  of  minutes  begins  April  25, 
1766,  showing  nine  members  of  the  Junto,  three  of 
whom  were  members  at  the  supposed  suspension  four 
years  before.  The  minutes  now  continue  regularly  until 
the  union  of  the  two  societies. 

In  1760,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  absence  and  other 
causes  had  reduced  the  membership  to  six ;  and  on  Feb- 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION"   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          169 

ruary  6,  1761,  there  was  talk  of  dissolution.  It  was 
finally  decided,  however,  to  return  to  the  original  plan 
of  organization ;  and  as  the  original  rules  could  not  be 
found,  it  was  decided  to  write  them  anew  from  the  recol- 
lection of  the  members.  As  set  down,  these  rules  do  not 
differ  materially  from  those  which  Franklin  records 
of  his  Junto.  On  December  13,  1766,  the  name  of  the 
Junto  was  changed  to  the  American  Society  for  Pro- 
moting and  Propagating  Useful  Knowledge  Held  in 
Philadelphia,  and  its  membership  was  increased. 

The  gap  from  October  22,  1762,  to  April  25,  1766, 
seems  to  be  in  part  explained  by  the  letter  of  Philip 
Syng  to  Dr.  Franklin  under  date  of  March  1,  1766,  in 
which  he  says :  i  t  The  Junto  fainted  last  summer  in  the 
hot  weather,  and  has  not  yet  revived;  your  presence 
might  reanimate  it,  without  which,  I  apprehend,  it  will 
never  recover. "  This  statement  clearly  refers  to  the 
same  Junto  which  Dr.  Franklin  mentions  in  his  letter 
of  July  7,  1765,  to  Hugh  Eoberts,  in  which  he  says:  "I 
wish  you  would  continue  to  meet  the  Junto,  notwith- 
standing that  some  effects  of  our  public  political  mis- 
understanding appear  there.  It  is  now  perhaps  one  of 
the  oldest  clubs,  as  I  think  it  was  formerly  one  of  the 
best,  in  the  King's  dominions.  It  wants  but  about  two 
years  of  forty  since  it  was  established. "  Franklin's 
language  here  is  significant,  and  it  is  carefully  chosen. 
He  speaks  of  "the  Junto"  and  does  not  attempt  to  dif- 
ferentiate it,  which  he  surely  would  have  done  had 
there  existed  at  this  time  any  other  Junto  in  Phila- 


170  KEPOKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

delphia.  He  speaks  of  it  as  a  "club."  It  was,  as  we 
know  from  its  rules,  a  secret  debating  club  limited  to  a 
membership  of  twelve,  and  not  a  society  such  as  the 
American  Philosophical  Society,  which  he  had  founded 
in  1743.  He  probably  refers  to  the  lack  of  interest  in 
the  Junto  as  shown  by  its  periods  of  somnolence  and 
revival,  by  speaking  of  it  as  "one  of  the  oldest  clubs, 
as  I  think  it  was  formerly  one  of  the  best,  in  the  King's 
dominions."  The  "formerly"  refers,  doubtless,  to 
those  flourishing  early  years  when  Franklin  took  an 
active  part  in  its  proceedings.  It  is  therefore  reason- 
able to  believe  that  the  club  fell  into  a  state  of  sus- 
pended animation  in  the  early  forties,  and  remained 
so  until  a  revival  of  its  activities  took  place  in  1750. 
It  is  also  reasonable  to  believe  that  Franklin  had 
dropped  out  of  membership;  and  his  election  many 
years  later  can  give  no  firm  ground  for  the  inference 
that  there  were  two  societies,  each  called  the  Junto, 
existing  side  by  side  in  Philadelphia. 

In  what  year  Franklin  dropped  out  of  the  Junto  we 
do  not  know.  As  the  membership  was  limited  to  twelve, 
it  is  easy  to  believe  that  when  a  member  became  so 
busy  and  so  absorbed  in  important  affairs  as  Franklin 
was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  decade  succeeding  1730, 
he  would  retire  from  the  club ;  for  the  Junto  was  really 
a  young  men 's  debating  club,  organized  for  mental  and 
material  improvement,  which  required  its  members, 
under  penalty  of  fine,  to  attend  its  weekly  meetings  at 
six  o  'clock  in  winter,  and  seven  in  summer,  and  to  pre- 


DATE    OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          171 

pare  questions  and  papers  for  discussion.  It  was  pro- 
vided that  any  member  who  absented  himself  three  suc- 
cessive nights  without  apology  should  be  dropped.  In 
1734  Franklin  was  Grand  Master  of  the  Masons  in 
Pennsylvania;  two  years  later  he  was  Clerk  of  the 
Assembly;  in  the  next  year  he  was  postmaster  at  Phil- 
adelphia ;  so  busy  a  man  may  well  have  outgrown  the 
Junto.  In  May,  1743,  he  issued  his  proposals  for  the 
formation  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  which 
was  a  Society  with  plan  and  aims  very  different  from 
those  of  his  Junto ;  but  so  busy  was  he  at  this  time,  that 
in  the  November  following  he  wrote  to  Cadwalader 
Golden:  "My  long  absence  from  home  put  my  business 
so  far  behindhand  that  I  had  no  leisure  to  forward  the 
scheme  of  the  Society. "  At  this  time  he  was  perfect- 
ing his  Pennsylvania  fire-place  and  making  his  experi- 
ments in  electricity.  In  1748  he  entered  the  City  Coun- 
cils. In  1749  he  became  a  commissioner  of  the  Peace, 
and  at  the  same  time  he  issued  his  "Proposals  relating 
to  the  Education  of  Youth  in  Pennsylvania. "  He  was 
chosen  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Col- 
lege which  resulted  from  this  effort.  In  1750  he  was 
elected  to  the  Assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  and  was  made 
a  commissioner  to  arrange  a  treaty  with  the  Indians. 
It  would  seem,  then,  that  for  a  considerable  number  of 
years  before  this  date  he  was  much  too  absorbed  in 
affairs  of  great  importance,  and  far  too  busy  in  his 
regular  round  of  duties,  to  have  remained  one  of  the 
twelve  active  members  of  the  Junto,  or,  at  its  revival  in 


172  EEPOKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

that  year,  to  have  reassociated  himself  with  it,  although 
we  have  ample  evidence  that  he  always  maintained  his 
interest  in  it. 

If,  then,  it  be  remembered  that  the  members  of  the 
early  Junto,  as  they  found  themselves  unable  to  per- 
form their  allotted  shares  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
club,  retired  to  make  way  for  younger  and  efficient 
members,  many  of  the  difficulties  which  confronted  the 
older  Committee  in  regard  to  the  membership  of  the 
Junto  will  disappear.  These  retired  members,  how- 
ever, it  may  be  supposed,  retained  the  privilege  of 
attending  the  meetings  of  the  club.  Thus  in  1760 
Hugh  Eoberts  writes  to  Franklin:  " Pursuant  to  thy 
order,  I  have  two  or  three  times  revisited  the  ancient 
Junto";  and  in  the  following  year  Franklin  writes 
to  him:  "You  tell  me  you  sometimes  visit  the  ancient 
Junto."  The  word  "visit"  was  evidently  used  ad- 
visedly, and  would  hardly  have  been  used  in  refer- 
ence to  an  active  member  attending  the  weekly  meeting 
of  his  Society.  Again  in  1765,  May  20,  Eoberts  writes 
to  Franklin  "I  sometimes  visit  the  worthy  remains  of 
the  Ancient  Junto,"  which  could  well  be  the  "new" 
Junto;  and  on  October  12,  1765,  he  writes:  "the  re- 
maining members  of  the  good  old  Junto  adjourned 
during  the  warm  and  short  evenings,  and  are  now  en- 
deavoring to  find  a  House  for  their  and  thy  reception, 
where  we  may  sit  with  more  satisfaction  than  of  late. ' ' 
In  the  following  year  Franklin  replies  to  Eoberts  and 
says  "Eemember  me  affectionately  to  the  Junto,"  not 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          173 

calling  it  the  ancient  or  the  new,  but  "  the  Junto, "  from 
which,  too,  we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  it  was  the 
one  and  only  Junto  to  which  he  referred. 

There  is  no  unequivocal  evidence  whatever  for  the 
existence  of  the  two  Juntos  as  separate  contempora- 
neous societies  in  Philadelphia.  The  seventy  years 
which  have  elapsed  since  the  report  of  the  old  Commit- 
tee have  witnessed  a  great  revival  of  interest  in  -our 
colonial  history.  Most  of  the  older  diaries  and  corre- 
spondance  now  extant  have  been  carefully  read  and 
many  of  them  have  been  printed.  In  all  these  diaries 
and  letters,  as  well  as  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day, 
your  present  Committee  has  been  unable  to  find  a  single 
reference  which  can  justify  the  hypothesis  of  the  old 
Committee.  The  references  in  the  correspondence  of 
the  day  to  the  Ancient  Junto  or  the  old  Junto,  to  the 
new  Junto  or  the  Young  Junto,  may  all  pass  as  facile 
expressions  to  differentiate  the  revived  Junto  from  its 
preceding  organization.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the 
newly  discovered  fragments  of  letters  found  among 
some  unbound,  dilapidated  sheets  of  the  Franklin 
papers.  One  letter  from  Cadwalader  Evans  to  William 
Franklin,  under  date  of  January  25,  1768,  speaks  of 
"some  members  of  the  young  Junto, "  and  says,  "this 
young  Junto  ever  since  last  September  has  been  fabri- 
cating a  plan.  .  .  . ' '  And  another  letter  from  William 
Franklin  to  Cadwalader  Evans,  under  date  of  January 
29,  1768  (p.  139),  says,  "I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for 
your  Account  of  the  two  new  Philosophical  Societies/' 


174  KEPOKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

These  letters  admit  of  no  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
Societies  referred  to  and  clearly  indicate  the  habit  of 
the  day  of  referring  to  the  revived  society  as  a  new 
society.  It  was  this  habit  which  led  Charles  Thomson 
to  write  of  the  revived  Junto  as  the  Society  "  begun  in 
the  year  1750,"  and  so  puzzled  the  older  Committee 
that  they  were  fain  to  invent  the  hypothesis  of  the  two 
Juntos.  "You  remember  the  Society  to  which  I  be- 
longed, which  was  begun  in  the  year  1750,"  so  Mr. 
Thomson  writes  to  Franklin  November  6, 1768.  t  i  From 
some  conversation  I  had  with  you,1  some  few  of  us 
exerted  ourselves  to  revive  it  again." 

A  careful  reading  of  this  letter  suggests  that  the  or- 
ganization of  1750,  to  which  Thomson  refers,  was  a 
revival  of  the  Junto  whose  name  it  bore  and  whose 
laws  and  rules  it  adopted.  He  would  hardly  have  writ- 
ten to  Franklin  "You  remember  the  Society  to  which 
I  belonged,"  were  it  not  the  Junto  of  which  Franklin 
had  been  the  founder,  and  in  which  he  continued  his 
interest,  even  though  he  had  passed  from  its  member- 
ship. In  1750  Thomson  was  but  twenty-one  years  of 
age,  and  had  just  been  brought  to  Philadelphia  to  teach 
Greek  and  Latin  in  the  new  Academy.  Franklin  was 
more  than  double  his  age,  and  therefore  not  likely  to 
have  been  on  terms  of  such  intimate  friendship  with 
him  as  to  have  known  with  what  societies  he  had  allied 

i  This  conversation  occurred  probably  before  the  end  of  1764,  when 
Franklin  returned  to  Europe,  and  when  the  Society  was  in  a  state  of 
somnolence  from  October,  1762j  to  April,  1766,  as  is  shown  by  the  ab- 
sence of  minutes. 


DATE    OF    THE    FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          175 

himself,  had  it  not  been  that  this  was  one  in  which 
Franklin  himself  took  a  deep  interest.  It  need  not  be 
assumed  that  Thomson  was  guilty  of  tautology  when 
he  refers  to  the  efforts  in  1766  to  revive  the  Society 
" begun  in  the  year  1750, "  and  says  "some  few  of  us 
exerted  ourselves  to  revive  it  again."  He  was  a  student 
and  teacher  of  languages,  distinguished  as  a  careful 
and  precise  writer ;  and  mainly  for  that  reason  he  was 
selected  as  Secretary  of  the  Continental  Congress.  It 
was  the  same  fidelity  to  the  meaning  of  words  that  led 
him  in  later  life  to  make  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 
He  may  well  mean  that  both  the  efforts  of  1750  and  the 
more  successful  attempt  of  1766  were  revivals  of  the 
old  Junto. 

In  1767  there  still  existed  the  law  for  the  exclusion 
of  members  for  non-attendance ;  but  in  January,  1768, 
Thomson  presented  his  "Proposals  for  enlarging  this 
Society,  in  order  that  it  may  better  answer  the  end  for 
which  it  was  instituted."  These  rules  did  away  with 
the  limited  membership,  the  obligation  of  each  member 
in  turn  to  perform  specific  duties,  the  system  of  fines 
for  neglect  of  duty  and  for  absence,  as  well  as  the  ex- 
clusion of  members  for  continued  absence  without  satis- 
factory excuse.  Moreover,  as  Cadwalader  Evans  tells 
us,  these  new  rules  were  based  on  the  rules  of  the  Eoyal 
Society  and  the  Society  of  Arts. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  "Bules"  resulting  from 
Thomson's  "Proposals"  in  January,  1768,  there  ap- 
pears on  the  Minutes  of  February  12,  1768,  this  entry : 


176  REPOKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

"His  Excell.  William  Franklin,  Esq.  being  the  only 
member  of  the  ancient  Society,1  who  has  not  signed  the 
rules  of  this  book,  Dr.  Evans  is  desired  to  inform  him, 
that,  agreeable  to  what  was  concluded  on  in  reviving 
the  Society,  if  he  chooses  to  sign  our  rules  and  give  us 
a  meeting,  he  shall  be  considered  as  a  regular  mem- 
ber." On  February  19,  Dr.  Evans  reported  that  Gov. 
Franklin  wrote:  "When  I  come  to  town,  I  shall  do  my- 
self the  pleasure  of  meeting  you  as  an  old  member,  and, 
if  I  like  your  new  Eules,  as  I  probably  shall,  will  sign 
them,  and  make  it  my  business  to  attend  as  often  as  I 
possibly  can."  Other  minutes  show  how  the  old  mem- 
bers were  continued,  or  dropped  out,  as  the  case  might 
be,  in  the  revival  of  the  Society.  Dr.  Franklin,  no 
longer  an  active  member  of  the  Junto  of  twelve  mem- 
bers, and  now  abroad,  is  recorded  in  the  minutes  of 
February  19,  1768,  as  having  been  "elected";  and  on 
November  4  following,  although  still  in  Europe,  at  the 
first  election  of  officers  he  was  chosen  "President," 
there  having  been  no  permanent  officers  prior  to  that 
time,  each  member  acting  in  turn  as  Chairman  and  as 
Secretary. 

As  further  evidence  of  the  identity  of  this  Society 
with  the  original  Junto,  it  may  be  stated  that  Franklin 
throughout  his  correspondence  only  referred  to  it  in 
the  years  between  1753  and  1766,  the  years  in  which  the 
preserved  minutes  prove  it  to  have  been  in  existence, 
and  he  does  not  refer  to  it  by  that  name  after  the  date 

i  The  Junto,  limited  to  twelve  members. 


DATE   OP   THE   FOUNDATION   OP   THE   SOCIETY.          177 

of  its  change  of  name  to  the  " American  Society." 
Philip  Syng,  writing  to  Franklin  on  March  1, 1766,  says 
(p.  133) :  "The  Junto  fainted  last  summer  in  the  hot 
weather,  and  has  not  yet  revived ;  your  presence  might 
reanimate  it,  without  which  I  apprehend  it  will  never 
recover. "  But  it  did  recover  without  Franklin's  pres- 
ence, and  the  recorded  minutes  begin  again  on  April 
25,  1766,  after  a  lapse  from  October  22,  1762 ;  the  para- 
graph quoted  can  refer  to  no  other  than  Franklin's 
Junto.  This  is  confirmed  by  Hugh  Boberts's  letter  to 
Benjamin  Franklin  of  October  12,  1765  (see  p.  138), 
found  among  the  data  collected  in  1910:  "The  remain- 
ing members  of  the  good  old  Junto  adjourned  during 
the  warm  and  short  evenings  and  are  now  endeavoring 
to  find  a  House  for  -their  and  thy  reception  where  we 
may  sit  with  more  satisfaction  than  of  late ' ' ;  and  he 
writes  this,  too,  notwithstanding  that  Franklin  was  not 
formally  elected  to  membership  until  1768. 

The  identity  of  the  Junto  and  the  so-called  l  i  Society 
Junto"  is  confirmed  by  Dr.  Franklin  in  his  Autobiog- 
raphy in  which,  writing  of  the  Junto  and  speaking  of 
William  Coleman  as  one  of  its  members,  he  says  of 
him, — "our  friendship  continued  without  interruption 
to  his  death,  upwards  of  forty  years ;  and  the  club  con- 
tinued almost  as  long,  and  was  the  best  school  of  phi- 
losophy, morality,  and  politics  that  then  existed  in  the 
province."  The  records  show  that  William  Coleman 
died  in  January,  1769,  making  the  duration  of  his  mem- 
bership in  the  Junto  agree  with  the  statement  of  Dr. 


178  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

Franklin  as  "upwards  of  forty  years. "  In  1766  the 
club  was  converted  by  the  new  laws  into  a  Society ;  and 
on  December  13  its  name  was  formally  changed  to  * i  The 
American  Society  for  Promoting  and  Propagating  Use- 
ful Knowledge,  held  in  Philadelphia."  This  was  two 
years  before  the  death  of  Coleman,  so  that  the  facts 
agree  with  Dr.  Franklin's  statement  that  the  "club  con- 
tinued almost  as  long"  and  seem  to  confirm  our  as- 
sumption of  the  identity  of  his  Junto  with  the  club 
which  now  became  the  American  Society.  On  January 
2,  1769,  the  American  Society  was  united,  after  pro- 
longed and  formal  negotiations,  with  the  American 
Philosophical  Society. 

This  other  "parent"  society  had  been  founded  by 
Franklin  in  1743,  pursuant  to  a  circular  letter  issued  by 
him  and  entitled  a  "Proposal  for  promoting  useful 
knowledge  among  the  British  Plantations  in  America. ' J 
His  proposal  was  "that  one  Society  should  be  formed 
of  virtuosi  or  ingenious  men  residing  in  the  several 
colonies,  to  be  established  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
as  the  most  central  place,  and  to  be  called  the  American 
Philosophical  Society."  No  record  of  the  proceedings 
of  this  Society  at  this  period  are  preserved,  and  it  is 
probable  that  its  activities  ceased  within  a  very  few 
years  of  its  origin.  In  August,  1745,  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin writes:  "the  members  of  our  Society  here  are  very, 
idle  gentlemen.  They  will  take  no  pains.  I  must,  I  be- 
lieve, alter  the  scheme. ' '  This  Society,  then,  ceased  to 
exist  from  some  toe  in  the  latter  forties  until  1767, 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          179 

when  political  feeling  ran  high,  and  the  Proprietary 
Party  of  the  Province,  regarding  with  disfavor  the 
existence  of  a  learned  Society  in  America  [the  Ameri- 
can Society] ,  made  up  mainly  of  members  of  the  oppos- 
ing Popular  Party,  determined  to  counteract  its  in- 
fluences by  reviving  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety of  1743  and  electing  into  it  their  friends  of  the 
Proprietary  Party.  The  minutes  of  the  revived  So- 
ciety begin  with  January  19,  1768,  and  continue  until 
the  union  with  the  American  Society  in  1769. 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  most  important  evidence 
to  be  gleaned  from  the  minutes  of  club  and  society,  and 
from  correspondence  of  the  day.  It  is  in  order  to  make 
a  general  summary  of  the  case  and  determine  where 
lies  the  real  weight  of  all  the  testimony  to  be  obtained. 
Either  the  American  Society  was  a  continuation  of 
Franklin's  Junto  of  1727,  or  else  there  were  two  so- 
cieties called  the  Junto,  very  similar  in  character  and 
aim,  existing  side  by  side.  For  the  claims  of  the  former 
conclusion  several  considerations  may  be  urged.  First, 
the  general  drift  and  implication  of  the  minutes,  which 
were  cited  above,  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  making 
for  the  assumption  that  this  Junto  was  a  continuation 
of  Franklin's  club.  The  fact  that  Franklin  himself  was 
elected  a  member  in  1768,  which  seems  at  first  to  con- 
travene this  assumption,  is  a  perfectly  natural  matter 
in  view  of  what  has  been  heretofore  stated. 

Secondly,  heavy  stress  must  be  laid  on  the  tradition 
among  the  older  members  of  our  Society  that  its  origin 


180  KEPOET  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

was  in  Franklin's  Junto,  a  tradition  strongly  urged 
and  supported  in  the  Historical  Account  of  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau,  who  had  known  the  founders  themselves,  and 
on  the  definite  statement,  to  the  same  effect,  by  Dr. 
William  Smith. 

Thirdly,  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  two  contemporary 
societies  should  exist  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  each 
entitled,  without  any  limiting  terms,  The  Junto,  and 
should  leave  no  indisputable  trace  of  their  existence. 

On  the  other  side,  in  favor  of  the  coexistence  of  two 
Juntos  must  be  considered  the  statement  of  Charles 
Thomson  in  a  letter  written  to  Franklin  November  6, 
1768,  quoted  at  length  in  Mr.  Fisher's  communication 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  (p.  153),  and  already 
noticed  in  the  present  report.  One  sentence  in  Mr. 
Thomson's  letter  constituted  the  main  support  of  the 
contention  for  the  coexistence  of  the  two  Juntos :  "  You 
remember  the  Society  to  which  I  belonged,  which  was 
begun  in  the  year  1750,"  that  is,  of  course,  the  Junto, 
afterwards  the  American  Society.  The  older  Commit- 
tee oppose  this  testimony  to  the  tradition  and  general 
feeling  of  the  early  members  as  expressed  generally  by 
Mr.  Du  Ponceau,  and  specifically  in  Dr.  William 
Smith's  Eulogium  on  Franklin  in  1791,  where  he  says 
that  Franklin's  Junto  became  at  last  the  foundation  of 
the  American  Society.  If  we  regarded  these  two  state: 
ments,  Mr.  Thomson's  and  Dr.  Smith's,  each  for  itself, 
and  without  further  examination  of  the  origin  and  im- 
port of  each,  the  whole  question  would  seem  to  be  one 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          181 

of  veracity.  The  Committee,  however,  with  consider- 
able tact,  conclude  (p.  67)  that  it  is  a  question  not  of 
veracity  between  the  two  men  but  of  accuracy,  and  that 
Thomson  was  more  likely  to  be  accurate,  writing  in 
1768,  than  Smith  in  1791.  But  each  of  these  statements 
must  be  further  examined;  and  careful  consideration 
may  show  that  the  two  are  not  in  conflict. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  neither  at  the  time  of 
Dr.  Smith's  address,  nor  at  any  time  during  thirty- 
two  years  of  Thomson's  subsequent  life,  did  Thomson, 
or  any  other  person,  question  the  accuracy  of  Dr. 
Smith's  statement  about  the  origin  of  the  Society. 
What  the  Committee  goes  on  to  quote  from  Dr.  Thomas 
Bond  (p.  68)  as  confirmatory  of  Thomson's  statement, 
has  no  real  bearing  on  the  present  question.  Nobody 
disputes  that  Franklin  founded  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Society  in  1743,  on  a  most  extensive  plan,  for 
scientific  investigation  and  research ;  the  American  So- 
ciety, dropping  the  character  as  well  as  the  name  of  the 
Junto,  was  reaching  out  upon  the  same  lines;  and 
origins  of  the  sort  with  which  the  old  and  new  Commit- 
tee have  been  concerned,  which  connected  a  learned 
society  with  a  social  club,  had  no  part  in  Dr.  Bond's 
idea. 

Your  present  Committee  would  point  out,  however, 
that  it  was  not  simply  a  case  of  accuracy  between  the 
memory  of  Mr.  Thomson  in  1768  and  the  memory  of 
Dr.  William  Smith  in  1791.  The  "tradition"  referred 
to  by  Dr.  Smith  was  not  his  alone;  and  it  becomes  a 


182  KEPOBT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

most  formidable  piece  of  evidence  in  our  eyes  so  soon 
as  we  perceive  that  the  farther  we  go  into  the  past  the 
surer  and  sounder  this  tradition  is  disclosed  to  be.  It 
was  practically  unchallenged.  On  page  5  of  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau's  "Account,"  the  President  tells  how  great 
had  always  been  his  interest  in  the  Society  and  in  the 
history  of  its  founding.  "I  had  frequent  conversa- 
tions with  men  who  took  a  part  in  its  formation,  and 
particularly  with  the  venerable  Bishop  White  .  .  .  who 
was  a  member  of  the  i American  Society.'  He  loved  to 
talk  upon  the  subject.  He  informed  me  of  many  de- 
tails respecting  the  union  of  the  two  societies  which  are 
not  to  be  found  in  their  records.  .  .  .  Neither  he  nor 
anybody  else  at  that  time  doubted  of  the  'American' 
Society  having  been  a  continuation  of  the  Junto.  .  .  . 
This  fact  until  a  very  late  period  was  admitted  by  all. ' ' 
This  is  not  doubtful  testimony ;  it  surely  confirms  the 
"accuracy"  of  Dr.  William  Smith;  and  your  Commit- 
tee lays  great  stress  upon  its  significance.  It  is  true 
that  Thomson's  words  are  very  explicit,  and,  so  far  as 
they  go,  would  seem  at  first  to  make  for  the  older  Com- 
mittee's  conclusion.  "You  remember  the  Society  to 
which  I  belonged"  written  to  Franklin  would  seem  to 
exclude  him  as  its  founder.  "We  did  ouselves  the 
honor  ...  to  elect  you  a  member"  seems  confirmatory 
of  such  an  inference ;  but  the  Society  of  1768  had  such 
different  plans,  scope,  methods,  Franklin  at  many  times 
was  so  remote  and  at  all  times  was  so  busy  that  his  re- 
election in  1768  might  be  taken  not  only  as  proof  of  his 


DATE   OF    THE   FOUNDATION   OF   THE   SOCIETY.          183 

lapse  from  earlier  membership,  but  also  as  a  solicita- 
tion of  his  approval  of  the  new  plans,  especially  as  they 
ran  on  the  line  of  the  other  Society,  the  American  Phi- 
osophical  Society,  which  Franklin  had  founded,  without 
much  success,  in  1743. 

It  was  quite  fitting  that  Franklin  should  be  consulted 
about  the  revival  of  the  Junto  in  the  sixties.  Thomson 
writes  to  him  "From  some  conversation  I  had  with  you, 
some  few  of  us  exerted  ourselves  to  revive  it  again." 
This  is  in  allusion  to  the  new  plans  for  the  American 
Society;  but,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  reviving  again 
should  be  taken  as  indicating  a  previous  revival  of  the 
Junto  in  1750,  which  was  a  secret  club  with  rules  and 
aims  very  different  from  those  of  the  later  "American 
Society. ' '  There  is  evidence  that  the  revival  of  an  old 
Society  passed  sometimes  in  those  days  for  the  begin- 
ning of  a  new.  On  page  113  will  be  found  an  account 
of  the  dispute  in  1768  when  the  two  societies  were  ar- 
ranging for  their  union;  interesting  is  the  contention 
of  the  American  Society  that  it  is  senior  over  the 
American  Philosophical  Society,  which  is  not  recog- 
nized even  as  a  continuation  of  the  society  actually  be- 
gun in  1743.  The  reason  offered  for  this  assumption 
is  the  inactivity  of  the  latter  body  for  fifteen  or  twenty 
years.  Again,  there  is  considerable  political  and  parti- 
san hostility  to  be  inferred  from  the  minutes  of  these 
societies  and  the  correspondence  of  the  times.  "I 
sometimes  visit  the  worthy  remains  of  the  ancient 
Junto,  for  whom  I  have  a  great  esteem,  but  alas,  the 


184  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

political,  polemical  divisions  have  in  some  measure 
contributed  to  lessen  the  harmony  we  there  formerly 
enjoyed/'  writes  Hugh  Eoberts  to  Franklin  in  1765; 
and  this  passage  has  been  combined  by  the  older  Com- 
mittee with  Thomson's  letter  of  1768  to  prove  the  co- 
existence of  two  Juntos.  There  is  no  reason,  however, 
why  the  "worthy  remains  of  the  ancient  Junto"  should 
not  be  the  Junto  which  was  so  soon  to  be  reorganized 
as  the  American  Society,  and  which  had  been  so  changed 
and  had  undergone  so  many  vicissitudes  as  to  present 
scarcely  the  appearance  of  a  continued  organization. 

Against  the  assumption  of  the  two  Juntos,  on  which 
rests  the  whole  case  of  the  older  Committee,  as  far  as 
they  come  to  a  decision,  the  argument  from  silence 
must  be  strongly  emphasized.  It  is  highly  improbable, 
as  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  pointed  out,  that  two  Juntos  should 
exist  side  by  side.  It  is  amazing  to  find  no  explicit 
mention  of  them  if  they  did  so  exist.  More  than  this. 
Bishop  White  was  a  member  of  the  "  American "  So- 
ciety ;  how  could  he  fail  to  know,  and  note,  the  facts  to 
which  Thomson's  statement  is  supposed  to  testify? 
How  could  he  fail  to  see  that  these  facts  directly  con- 
travened his  own  repeated  statements  about  the  found- 
ing of  his,  that  is,  the  "American,"  Junto  by  Franklin? 
The  Minutes  of  the  American  Society  to  which  Bishop 
White  belonged  tend  to  confirm  his  statements;  and 
nowhere  in  the  literature  and  letters  of  that  time  is 
there  reference  to  the  existence  of  two  Juntos.  But 
these  two  contemporary  Juntos  must  absolutely  be 


DATE    OF    THE    FOUNDATION    OF   THE   SOCIETY.  185 

assumed  in  order  to  give  the  basis  for  Mr.  Fisher's 
contention ;  and  the  arguments  of  the  older  Committee 
(p.  85f)  against  Mr.  Du  Ponceau's  statement  of  this 
"improbability  if  not  impossibility"  are  not  convinc- 
ing.1 Your  Committee  believe  that  these  negative  con- 
siderations of  improbability,  of  silence,  of  the  elastic 
nature  of  such  a  word  as  "begun"  or  "founded,"  and 
the  positive  evidence,  not  explicit,  but  cumulative  and 
persistent,  of  the  minutes  of  the  Junto,  afterwards  the 
American  Society,  quite  offset  the  scanty  affirmative 

evidence,  mainly  that  of  Charles  Thomson,  brought  out 
by  our  predecessors  in  their  report. 

There  remain,  then,  the  clear  testimony  of  Mr.  Du 
Ponceau,  the  positive  declarations  of  Bishop  White  and 
Dr.  Smith,  and  that  generally  accepted  belief  of  the 
early  members,  to  which  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  testified,  but 
to  which  the  older  Committee,  fascinated  by  the  docu- 
ments discovered  and  produced  by  Mr.  Fisher,  refused 
to  give  a  really  attentive  ear.  Nothing  had  been  alleged 
or  discovered  which  seems  adequate  to  offset  that  tes- 
timony and  that  tradition.  There  is  now  no  centennial 
celebration  to  be  justified ;  the  zeal,  the  partisan  sharp- 
ness of  controversy,  which  was  controlled,  it  is  true,  by 
the  fine  courtesy  of  those  gentlemen  whom  we  are  proud 
to  call  our  predecessors,  but  which,  nevertheless,  can 

i  The  old  Committee  does  not  appear  to  have  given  sufficient  considera- 
tion to  the  fact  that  Franklin's  letter  to  Hugh  Roberts  (p.  132f)  was 
written  by  him  within  eight  months  after  leaving  Philadelphia,  where  he 
had  been,  off  and  on,  for  two  years.  If  there  had  then  been  two  Juntos 
it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  not  to  know  it.  Whatever  shape 
the  one  Junto  had  assumed,  it  was  regarded  by  Franklin  as  Ms  Junto. 


186  KEPOKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 

be  read  between  the  lines  of  their  report,  is  now  stilled ; 
and  your  Committee  is  constrained  to  the  opinion  that 
1727  was  the  date  of  the  foundation  of  this  Society; 
and  it  is  so  reported. 

Charlemagne  Tower, 
Mayer  Sulzberger, 
Hampton  L.  Carson, 
Francis  B.  Gummere, 
Samuel  Dickson, 
W.  W.  Keen, 
I.  Minis  Hays. 


SEPAEATE  EEPOET  ON  THE  DATE  OF  THE 
FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY 

I  am  in  entire  agreement  with  the  main  conclusion 
of  the  committee's  report,  that  the  origin  of  the  Ameri- 
can Philosophical  Society  should  be  carried  back  to  the 
Junto  founded  by  Franklin  in  1727 ;  but  I  am  unable  to 
agree  with  one  section  of  the  reasoning  by  which  that 
result  has  been  reached.  We  have  had  before  us  much 
material  for  the  solution  of  our  problem, — varying  in 
character  from  vague  reminiscences  to  contemporary 
written  records.  Much  of  this  is  so  late,  so  doubtful,  or 
so  elusive  as  to  be  relatively  valueless.  On  the  other 
hand  there  are  three  documents  or  groups  of  documents 
which  are  both  contemporary  and  definite,  and  on  the 
interpretation  of  these,  I  am  convinced,  the  decision  of 
the  question  referred  to  us  must  be  mainly  based. 
These  are,  first,  the  written  minutes  in  the  Society's 
possession;  second,  a  series  of  ten  letters  exchanged 
between  Franklin  on  one  side  and  Hugh  Eoberts  and 
Philip  Syng  on  the  other,  between  1753  and  1785 ;  and 
third,  a  letter  of  the  year  1768,  from  Charles  Thomson 
to  Benjamin  Franklin. 

From  the  first  of  these,  the  two  minute  books  in  the 
possession  of  our  Society,  it  is  evident  that  there  ex- 
isted for  the  twelve  years  from  1757  to  1769,  though 

187 


188  SEPAKATE  KEPOET  ON  THE 

with  several  intermissions,  a  society  consisting  of  12 
members,  meeting  on  Friday  evenings,  discussing  mat- 
ters of  scientific  or  other  serious  interest,  making  use 
of  a  well  established  entrance  ceremony  and  by-laws, 
and  referred  to  from  time  to  time  in  its  records  as  the 
Junto.1  The  name,  organization,  objects,  number  of 
members,  time  of  meeting  and  other  practices  of  this 
society  immediately  suggest  the  Junto  organized  by 
Franklin  in  1727  and  described  by  him  in  his  autobiog- 
raphy and  some  early  papers;2  and  seem  to  indicate 
that  this  body  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  continua- 
tion of  that  Society.  A  slight  misgiving  is  perhaps 
aroused  by  the  fact  that  in  the  minute  book  no  one  of 
the  members  of  Franklin's  Society  is  mentioned  as  a 
member  or  visitor,  although  at  least  five  were  still  living 
through  most  of  this  period ;  that  they  speak  of  them- 
selves in  1768  only  as  having  ' '  existed  for  some  years, '  '3 
and  nowhere  make  a  claim  of  very  early  origin;  and 
that  in  1768  Benjamin  Franklin  himself  was  elected  to 
membership.4  Nevertheless  these  somewhat  discon- 
certing facts  can  perhaps  be  explained  away,  and  if  we 
had  no  source  of  information  except  these  minute  books, 
I  have  little  doubt  they  would  be  looked  upon  as  frag- 
mentary records  of  the  club  which  Franklin  founded  in 
1727. 

When,  however,  we  take  up  the  ten  letters  between 
Franklin,  Eoberts,  and  Syng,  which  I  have  spoken  of 

1  Abstract  from  Junto  Minute  book,  Report,  pp.  99,  101,  103-106,  etc. 

2  Report,  p.  126. 
s  Eeport,  p.  115. 
4  Eeport,  p.  118. 


DATE  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY.  189 

as  the  second  group  of  evidences,  we  are  immediately 
faced  with  the  fact  that  the  writers  of  these  letters, 
during  the  same  period  of  time  as  that  covered  by  the 
minutes,  use  expressions  about  the  Junto  which  are 
difficult  if  not  impossible  to  conciliate  with  the  minutes. 
The  body  which  is  referred  to  in  this  correspondence 
is  repeatedly  spoken  of  as  "the  ancient  Junto,"  "the 
old  Junto,"  "the  good  old  Junto,"  "the  good  old  club, 
the  Junto."  Its  members  are  described  as  "the  re- 
maining members  of  the  good  old  Junto,"  "the  worthy 
remains  of  the  ancient  Junto,"  "our  old  friends  of  the 
Junto,  Hospital  and  Insurance."  Its  members  are 
spoken  of  by  Franklin  as  having  "grown  gray  to- 
gether " ;  it  is  described  in  1765  as  t  i  wanting  but  about 
two  years  of  40  since  it  was  established."  Eoberts 
speaks  of  the  "trivial  chat"  that  went  on  at  its  meet- 
ings, and  Franklin  says,  "I  love  company  . . .  and  relish 
even  better  than  I  used  to  do  the  grave  observations 
and  wise  sentences  of  old  men's  conversation,  so  that  I 
am  sure  the  Junto  will  be  still  agreeable  to  me  as  it 
ever  has  been.  I  therefore  hope  it  will  not  be  discon- 
tinued as  long  as  we  are  able  to  crawl  together."5  One 
obtains  from  these  letters  an  impression  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent body  from  that  described  in  the  minutes. 

The  body  described  in  the  correspondence  seems  to 
be  a  group  of  elderly  men,  bound  together  by  old  asso- 

s  Keport,  pp.  129,  130,  132-3,  135,  137-8.  Franklin  to  Koberts,  July 
16,  1753,  Sept.  15,  1758,  Feb.  16,  1761,  July  7,  1765,  Feb.  27,  1766. 

Eoberts  to  Franklin,  May  15,  1760,  May  20,  1765,  Oct.  12,  1765,  June 
24,  1785. 

Syng  to  Franklin,  May  1,  1766. 


190  SEPAKATE  REPORT  ON  THE 

ciations,  meeting  for  informal  talk,  dropping  off  one  by 
one,  but  the  survivors  still  holding  together,  as  Frank- 
lin says,  "till  the  eve  of  life  is  spent."  The  body  de- 
scribed in  the  minutes  is  a  group  of  much  younger  men, 
three  of  them  sons  of  the  men  who  carry  on  the  corre- 
spondence, meeting  for  the  discussion  of  definite  scien- 
tific questions.  There  is  not  a  single  case  in  which  the 
same  person  is  mentioned  in  the  two  bodies  of  records, 
until  we  reach,  in  1768,  the  notice  of  the  election  of 
Benjamin  Franklin  to  membership  in  the  younger  body. 

At  some  time,  perhaps  in  the  summer  of  1765,  when, 
as  one  of  the  early  members,  Philip  Syng,  wrote  some- 
what later,  "the  Junto  fainted  last  summer  in  the  hot 
weather  and  has  not  yet  revived, ' '  the  old  group  seems 
to  have  ceased  to  meet.6  Yet  even  twenty  years  later, 
in  1785,  when  but  three  of  them  were  still  living,  they 
retained  their  old  feeling  of  comradeship,  for  one  of 
their  members,  Hugh  Roberts,  writing  to  another,  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  concerning  the  third  says,  "Philip 
Syng,  the  only  other  surviving  member  of  the  old  Junto, 
labours  under  infirmities,  keeps  much  at  home  where  I 
can  seldom  go  to  visit  him."7 

The  younger  group,  on  the  other  hand,  continued  to 
meet,  although  with  various  intermissions,  until  in  1768 
they  changed  their  name,  enlarged  their  membership, 
and  prepared  themselves  for  the  amalgamation  with 
the  Philosophical  Society  which  took  place  next  year. 

The  proof  in  these  letters  of  the  non-identity  of  the 

e  Keport,  p.  133. 
7  Keport,  pp.  135-6. 


DATE  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY.  191 

two  groups  of  men,  both  of  which  refer  to  themselves 
as  the  Junto,  does  not  it  is  true  rise  to  an  actual  demon- 
stration, but,  added  to  the  doubt  left  from  a  study  of 
the  minutes,  it  amounts,  in  my  mind  at  least,  to  an  ab- 
solute conviction.  With  the  opposite  view  on  this  ques- 
tion taken  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  I  cannot 
therefore  agree.  The  two  groups  of  men  have  very 
much  in  common,  including  the  use  of  the  name  Junto, 
but  they  were  two  groups  of  men,  nevertheless. 

The  third  piece  of  substantive  evidence,  the  letter 
written  by  Charles  Thomson  to  Franklin,  November  6, 
1768,  not  only  confirms  the  impression  of  the  existence 
of  two  societies,  but  contributes  to  the  solution  of  the 
difficulty  involved  in  their  contemporary  existence.  In 
this  letter  Thomson,  who  had  been  the  most  active 
member  of  the  Society  of  which  we  have  the  minutes, 
at  least  since  1758,  tells  Franklin  of  its  recent  revival, 
the  extension  of  its  membership  and  its  new  plans,  and 
begs  his  advice  and  assistance  in  carrying  out  these 
plans.  He  tells  him  that  he,  Franklin,  has  within  the 
last  few  months  been  elected  to  membership  and  still 
more  recently  to  its  presidency.  This  is  all  in  accord- 
ance with  what  we  already  know  from  a  study  of  the 
minutes,  and  discloses  no  new  fact.  Incidentally,  how- 
ever, he  tells  what  the  minutes  do  not  tell  us,  that  the 
Society  was  begun  in  1750.  This  is  a  simple  concrete 
statement  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  means 
just  what  it  says.  The  society  of  which  we  have  the 
minutes  was  "  begun  in  1750.  "8 

s  Keport,  pp.  153-5. 


192  SEPAEATE  KEPOKT  ON  THE 

But  in  what  sense  was  the  Society  begun  in  1750? 
That  is  the  real  question.  In  the  year  1768,  a  commit- 
tee was  appointed  to  draw  up  "  a  short  plain  history  of 
the  origin  of  this  Society,"9  but  unfortunately  there  is 
no  evidence  that  it  ever  performed  that  duty,  which 
would  have  relieved  the  present  committee  of  its  re- 
sponsibilities. In  default  of  such  a  history  prepared  by 
those  who  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  facts,  we  can 
only  solve  the  problem  of  the  Society's  origin  by  going 
back  to  the  minutes  and  interpreting  them  in  the  light 
of  Thomson's  statement  and  of  the  Autobiography  and 
the  correspondence.  What  occurred  would  seem  to 
have  been  something  like  this.  In  1750  a  club  was 
formed  in  exact  imitation  of  the  old  Junto,  so  far  as 
concerned  number  of  members,  objects,  procedure, 
habitual  subjects  of  discussion,  rules,  organization, 
secrecy  and  every  other  discernible  characteristic,  ex- 
cept personnel.  It  is  notable  that  Franklin's  famous 
four  qualifications  for  membership  in  his  Junto,  kindli- 
ness to  other  members  of  the  Society,  love  for  all  man- 
kind, devotion  to  search  for  truth,  and  belief  in  religious 
freedom,  as  impressed  upon  entering  members,  were 
almost  word  for  word  the  same  in  the  younger  as  in  the 
older  society.  Moreover,  whenever  the  by-laws  are  re- 
capitulated or  revised  they  are  spoken  of  as  the ' '  ancient 
laws,"  or  "original  laws,"  as  though  they  were  taken 
over  from  an  older  body.10  The  members  were,  as  has 

9  Report,  p.  116. 

10  Report,  pp.  56-7,  100,  101,  103-4. 


DATE  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY.  193 

been  said,  in  three  cases, — William  Franklin,  Philip 
Syng  and  George  Eoberts, — sons  of  members  of  the 
older  body.  In  all  cases  that  can  be  identified,  they 
were  much  younger  men  than  the  members  of  the  old 
Junto.  This  body,  formed  in  1750  in  close  imitation 
and  close  personal  connection  with  the  body  established 
23  years  before,  ought  therefore  to  be  looked  upon  as 
an  offshoot  of  it,  a  younger  branch,  just  such  a  body  as 
those  five  or  six  "subordinate  clubs "  described  by 
Franklin  in  his  Autobiography  as  having  been  formed 
in  1736  with  the  same  rules  as  the  parent  Society. 

This  view  of  the  case  having  been  once  accepted, 
many  pieces  of  minor  evidence  fall  readily  into  place. 
A  letter  from  Cadwalader  Golden  to  Wm.  Franklin, 
written  in  the  same  year  as  that  of  Thomson  to  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  speaks  twice  of  the  "young  Junto, " 
just  as  Franklin  and  Eoberts  speak  of  the  "ancient 
Junto."11  The  word  Junto,  therefore,  as  applied  to 
both  societies,  may  well  have  been  looked  upon  as  a 
generic  rather  than  a  specific  term.  They  were  both 
Juntos,  an  elder  and  a  younger.  So  the  later  general 
tradition,  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  committee's  report, 
of  the  connection  of  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety with  Franklin's  Junto  may  not  have  discrimi- 
nated between  the  two  forms  of  the  Junto.  Even  Dr. 
Smith's  references  in  his  address  of  1791  may  be  ex- 
plained as  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  relations 
of  the  two  societies,  to  which  we  now  possess  the  clue 

nKeport,  pp.  138-9. 


194  SEPAKATE  KEPOKT  ON  THE 

through  Franklin's  correspondence,  but  to  which  he 
had  no  access.12 

It  may  in  all  fairness  therefore  be  claimed  that  the 
Philosophical  Society  is  derived  from  the  ancient  Junto, 
although  through  a  younger  branch.  If  the  history  of 
our  Society  is  followed  back  from  1769,  one  of  its  lines 
of  parentage,  that  of  the  Philosophical  Society,  as  is 
well  known,  goes  back  to  1743 ;  the  other  in  my  opinion 
goes  back  through  the  American  Society  and  the 
younger  Junto,  begun  in  1750,  to  the  parent  of  that 
Society,  the  older  Junto,  established  in  1727.  The  nar- 
rative given  in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  October 
15, 1841,  seems  to  me  to  be  a  clear  and  correct  statement 
of  the  facts  and  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth,  and 
sixth  clauses  of  their  conclusion  to  be  fully  justified. 
The  fifth  conclusion,  however,  the  inference  from  these 
facts  that  1743  should  be  considered  as  the  earliest  date 
of  origin  of  the  Society,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  justi- 
fiable.13 If  the  "date  of  founding, "  as  it  has  been 
formulated  for  the  use  of  colleges  by  the  Carnegie 
Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of  Teaching  means 
"the  year  in  which  the  institution  was  established  out 
of  which  the  present  college  or  university  (institution), 
has  developed,"  the  Junto  of  1750  certainly  developed 
out  of  the  Junto  of  1727,  and  the  Society  may  claim  its 
descent  through  a  younger  line  just  as  fairly  as  by 
primogeniture,  so  that  the  date  of  origin  of  the  Society 

12  Keport,  pp.  141-2. 
is  Keport,  pp.  53-96. 


DATE  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY.  195 

should  be  considered  that  of  the  formation  of  Frank- 
lin 's  Junto,  in  1727. 

E.  P.  CHEYNEY. 


The  question  whether  Franklin  was  in  a  proper  sense 
the  founder  of  our  Society  is  not  in  doubt.  He  founded 
the  American  Philosophical  Society  of  1743.  He  founded 
the  Junto  of  1727.  The  development  of  a  junior  Junto, 
— if  such  a  thing  occurred, — was  unquestionably  due  to 
the  impetus  of  the  older  Junto ;  and  the  change  of  the 
local  Junto  into  a  Society  which  included  corresponding 
members  from  other  colonies  was  a  mere  broadening 
of  its  purpose.  In  the  sense  of  the  ruling  of  the  Car- 
negie Foundation  it  is  clear  that  when  Franklin  founded 
his  original  Junto,  he  became  the  founder  of  the  Ameri- 
can Society.  He  is  admitted  by  all  to  be  the  founder  of 
the  Philosophical  Society.  Our  Society  therefore  owes 
its  origin  to  him  on  both  sides. 

CHAELEMAGNE  TOWEK, 
JAMES  T.  MITCHELL, 
MAYEK  SULZBEEGEE, 
SAMUEL  DICKSON, 
HAMPTON  L.  CAESON, 
E.  P.  CHEYNEY, 
FEANCIS  B.   GUMMEEE, 
W.  W.  KEEN, 
I.  MINIS  HAYS. 


196          ACTION  OF  THE  SOCIETY  ON  THE  KEPOKT. 

ACCEPTANCE  OF  THE  EEPOKT 

At  the  Stated  Meeting  of  the  Society  held  May  1, 
1914,  Hon.  Charlemagne  Tower,  Chairman,  presented 
and  read  at  length  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Date  of  Origin  of  the  Society. 

On  motion,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  the  Eeport  was 
accepted ;  the  year  1727  was  declared  to  be  the  date  of 
the  foundation  of  the  Society,  in  accordance  with  the 
finding  of  the  Committee ;  and  the  Committee  was  dis- 
charged, with  the  thanks  of  the  Society  for  its  exhaus- 
tive report. 
Extracted  from  the  Minutes. 


12 


^ 


v 


Tjf/ 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1  -year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

NOV161999 


V 


^ 


AUG  2 1 


12,000(11/95) 


